add_dhcp_reservation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait beyond the schema: the reserved IP may fall outside the DHCP pool. However, it omits permission requirements, idempotency/duplicate handling, and what a successful call returns, which matters for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and appends one clarifying constraint in parentheses. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one nuance but leaves failure modes, permissions, and duplicate handling unaddressed. Given the fully documented parameters, this is adequate but not complete.

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 all five parameters (ip, mac, vdom, server_id, description) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates mac/ip/server implicitly and adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Reserve) plus resource (IP for a MAC address on a DHCP server), and the parenthetical clarifies the scope of what can be reserved. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling delete_dhcp_reservation and from list_dhcp_servers/list_dhcp_leases.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (create a fixed DHCP reservation), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about behavior when a reservation for the MAC/IP already exists. The parenthetical about the IP sitting outside the pool is a useful scope hint but not usage routing.

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