create_device_vap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the accepted security modes, explains that enterprise and WEP modes are refused because no radius/user-group or WEP key is set, and discloses that the echoed passphrase is stripped from the result — a security-relevant behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into Args and Returns sections with no wasted sentences. The security sentence is long but each clause conveys a real constraint (accepted modes, refusals, rationale), so the length is justified.

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?

Covers creation semantics, all parameter semantics, mode restrictions, and output behavior for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations. Even though an output schema exists, it adds the passphrase-stripping detail that materially affects how an agent handles the response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: every one of the 7 parameters is explained, including the passphrase 8-63 length constraint, which modes require it, how it is mapped (passphrase vs sae-password, both for transition mode), the security default, and the vdom default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — create a wireless VAP (SSID) in a device's device DB — with an immediate parenthetical defining VAP. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_device_wtp, list_device_vaps, and assign_vap_to_wtp_profile.

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?

Explains the workflow position: the VAP is not broadcastable until it is added to a FortiAP profile via assign_vap_to_wtp_profile, naming the sibling that follows. It gives clear context but does not state exclusions or alternatives for creating the VAP itself.

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