Create network interface

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

The description states 'HIGH RISK — wrong config can disconnect the node,' which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation (true) and adds context about the potential impact. It does not contradict annotations and adds valuable behavioral insight beyond the annotation flags.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and the critical warning. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given 14 parameters, no output schema, and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description is insufficient. It provides a crucial risk warning but fails to explain the role of many parameters, return values, or expected behavior. Important context like prerequisites or the confirm parameter is only mentioned in the schema, not in the description.

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 only 14% (only iface and confirm have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond mentioning interface types (bond, bridge, VLAN, physical), which partially maps to the 'type' parameter. Other critical parameters like address, gateway, slaves, etc., are left unexplained, so the description does not adequately compensate for the low coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Create a network interface (bond, bridge, VLAN, or physical).' This clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (network interface), with specific types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_node_network or update_node_network.

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?

The description warns 'HIGH RISK — wrong config can disconnect the node. Ask the user to confirm before invoking.' This provides clear when-to-use (creating network interfaces) and a strong caution, including an instruction to get user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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