sophos_create_isolation_exclusion

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the direction constraint but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as validation rules, potential errors, or idempotency. The agent has limited insight beyond the annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loading the purpose and immediately stating a key constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no superfluous content.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the high-level purpose and a key constraint (direction). However, it does not clarify the roles of local_ports, remote_ports, and remote_addresses in the context of isolation exclusions, though the schema descriptions cover them. The lack of output schema means the agent must infer return values. Overall, adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description reinforces the direction enum constraint ('inbound' or 'outbound') and connects parameters to the use case, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating an isolation exclusion to allow specific traffic through a network-isolated endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sophos_list_isolation_exclusions (list), sophos_get_isolation_exclusion (get), and sophos_update_isolation_exclusion (update) by focusing on creation and the specific context of network isolation.

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 a constraint ('Direction must be 'inbound' or 'outbound') but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create versus update an isolation exclusion, or when to use a regular exclusion). Usage context is implied but explicit exclusions or comparisons are missing.

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