aap_create_host

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation is clear, but the description adds little beyond that. It only mentions the return type and does not disclose idempotency, error conditions, required permissions, or behavior if a host already exists. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still lacks meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear opening statement, a helpful example, and a brief args/returns section. It is not overly verbose, though the example could be more aligned with the actual parameter semantics.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a create tool. It does not explain how to obtain the required inventory_id, and the example uses an inventory name instead of an ID, which is inconsistent with the schema. It also omits prerequisites like the inventory needing to exist. These gaps make the description insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 description merely restates 'params (CreateHostInput): Host configuration' without explaining any individual parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. The example mentions 'Production inventory' which conflicts with the required integer inventory_id, potentially misleading the agent. Although the schema has property descriptions, the description adds no value beyond them.

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 'Add a host to an AAP inventory' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from siblings like aap_create_inventory or aap_add_host_to_group. The example reinforces the action by showing a concrete hostname and inventory context.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when adding a host to an inventory) through its opening sentence and example. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools like aap_update_host or aap_add_host_to_group, so it falls short of a full 5 but provides clear context.

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