attach_carrier_subscriber_host

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the guarded behavior: read-before, no-op when already linked, confirm=true required, write kill-switch, and read-after reporting prev_host_id. Also states the testing limitation (hermetic/spec-conformance only), which is critical for expectation-setting.

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?

Every sentence delivers unique value: endpoint, guarded behavior, constraints, parameter meanings, and testing caveat. No fluff or redundancy; information is front-loaded with the action and endpoint first.

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, the description provides all necessary contextual details: the guarded workflow, prerequisites (same ISP organization), source of subscriber_id, and the no-op behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and understand side effects.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does: subscriber_id (source), host_id (gateway host id), confirm (must be true), key_label (optional API-key label). Every parameter is covered with meaningful explanation beyond the schema's raw type definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('Attach or re-link') and a resource ('subscriber's gateway host') with the exact PUT endpoint. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like detach_carrier_subscriber_host, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit operational context: host must be in the same ISP organization, and links to the source of subscriber_id from list_carrier_subscribers. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use, but the guarded nature and constraints effectively guide appropriate use.

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