Create SDN controller

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

Adds context beyond annotations by explicitly stating the high risk and dependency on network connectivity. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description reinforces the need for caution.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous text. First sentence states purpose and supported protocols, second sentence highlights risk and required confirmation. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Adequate for a high-risk tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the risk aspect and confirmation requirement, but does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how parameters interact.

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?

With only 44% schema description coverage, the description does little to clarify parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'evpn', 'isis', 'bgp' types but does not explain other critical parameters like node, peers, loopback, or ebgp_multihop.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates an SDN controller and lists supported protocols (EVPN/ISIS/bgp). Distinguishes from sibling tools like update_sdn_controller and delete_sdn_controller by naming the action, but could be more explicit about what an SDN controller is versus other SDN components.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_sdn_controller, create_sdn_subnet). Only instructs to ask user for confirmation, which is a safety measure but not a usage criterion.

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