create_ips_sensor

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

With no annotations, the description discloses several useful behaviors: the sensor is created empty, accepted enum-like values are listed, and the return status is described. However, it omits mutation-relevant details such as required permissions, duplicate-name behavior, ADOM lock requirements, and whether a commit is needed.

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 front-loaded with purpose and workflow, then uses structured Args/Returns/Example sections. It is generally efficient, though the Returns section somewhat duplicates the available output schema.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no annotations and low schema description coverage, it provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: all parameters, allowed values, creation semantics, follow-up workflow, and an example. The remaining gaps are operational behaviors like authorization, locking, and conflict handling.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It documents all six parameters and supplies allowed values for block_malicious_url, scan_botnet_connections, and extended_log, which the schema itself does not provide.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an IPS sensor.' It also clarifies the resulting state ('created empty') and routes the agent to the related signature-override tool, distinguishing it from update/add-override siblings.

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?

It gives clear workflow guidance: create the sensor first, then use add_ips_sensor_signature_override to populate it. It does not explicitly discuss when to use update_ips_sensor instead or mention prerequisites such as ADOM locking.

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