ad_create_computer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and the only signal is the [WRITE] tag. It says nothing about required AD permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or — critically — how the confirmation_token and dry_run parameters interact (a likely two-phase mutation pattern). That omission is a real risk for an agent calling a directory-writing tool.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with useful category tags, but for a 7-parameter write operation it is drastically under-specified rather than concise. The brevity here reflects missing content, not efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and an undocumented confirmation-token workflow, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this definition.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The meaning of name vs. sam_account_name, the format expected for path (distinguished name? OU path?), the purpose of correlation_id, and the confirmation_token flow are all completely undocumented.

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?

"Criar objeto de computador" states a specific verb (create) and resource (computer object), and the [Computers & Devices] [WRITE] tags place it in the right family. But the sentence is a near-translation of the tool name ad_create_computer, adding almost no distinguishing detail versus siblings like ad_create_user or ad_move_computer, and it gives no hint about what a valid computer object creation entails.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisites (domain, OU permissions), no statement of when to prefer this over ad_create_user or ad_move_computer, and no mention of the confirm/dry-run workflow implied by the schema. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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