create_hotspot_operator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'create,' but does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, or any caveats. The output schema exists, but the description does not hint at what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is two sentences, with the second packing parameter clarifications into a dense but readable format. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the five parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core required fields and gives format hints for host and site. The only missing piece is the optional 'note' parameter and clearer guidance on response handling, but the output schema fills that gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a competent agent.

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 input schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains host (including the MAC:numericId composite format), site (name or ID), name (username), and password (password). However, it omits the optional 'note' parameter entirely. Despite the omission, the provided explanations are concrete and actionable, earning a strong score.

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 a hotspot operator account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_hotspot_operators, update_hotspot_operator, and delete_hotspot_operator. The description also explains key parameters that reinforce the creation purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the verb 'create,' but there is no guidance on when the update or delete siblings should be used instead. The parameter explanations provide some context, but no direct usage guidance.

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