Create SDN zone

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

Description adds the behavioral trait of high risk and confirmation requirement, consistent with annotations (destructiveHint: true). Could elaborate on effects but adequate.

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, zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second adds critical risk warning. Highly 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 creation tool with risk warning, but given 9 parameters and no output schema, more context on parameter usage would improve completeness.

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 22% schema description coverage, description adds little parameter meaning beyond listing types. Most parameters (mtu, peers, bridge, vxlan_port, vlan_protocol) lack any explanation.

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 action (create) and resource (SDN zone), listing supported types (vxlan/evpn/simple/qinq/vlan). Distinguishes from siblings like create_sdn_controller or create_sdn_subnet.

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?

Explicitly says 'HIGH RISK — ask the user to confirm before invoking', providing clear usage guidance. Does not contrast with specific alternatives but context is sufficient.

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