create_dhcp_reservation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a write operation, explains the DHCP server selection precedence, and states duplicate IP or MAC reservations are rejected before anything is written. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects on existing leases, which prevents a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a structured parameter list and a short returns section. The selection precedence and duplicate-rejection rule are included without rambling or repetition; no sentence feels extraneous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description includes a brief Returns section noting creation status and the chosen DHCP server, which is useful. Combined with the parameter explanations and server-selection logic, it is nearly complete, though it could clarify permissions or what happens if server selection fails.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by defining the precedence between dhcp_server_id, interface, and automatic subnet-based selection. It also references list_dhcp_servers for obtaining server IDs, which helps the agent populate the parameter correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reserve an IP address for a MAC address on a FortiGate DHCP server.' It clearly distinguishes this creation action from siblings such as delete_dhcp_reservation and list_dhcp_servers without requiring schema inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains how the target DHCP server is selected by dhcp_server_id, then interface, then subnet containment, and references list_dhcp_servers for server IDs. It provides clear operating context but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives or what prerequisites are required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.