firewall_addrgrp_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the creation action without details on prerequisites, idempotency, error conditions, or authorization requirements. The description does not mention behavioral aspects like what happens if the group already exists.

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?

A single sentence of 5 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Create'. No wasted words, but the brevity borders on under-specification. It is concise and to the point, but could benefit from more context.

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 the tool's low complexity and presence of an output schema (context signal: 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally adequate. It does not discuss return values, errors, or usage context (e.g., FortiOS). For a simple create tool with rich schema, this is acceptable but lacks 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, providing no usage examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Create a new IPv4 address group' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (IPv4 address group). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like firewall_addrgrp_delete, firewall_addrgrp_list, and firewall_addrgrp_get, which perform different operations on address groups.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as firewall_address_create (for individual addresses) or firewall_addrgrp_update (if it existed). No when-not or context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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