create_hotspot_vouchers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple "create" by explaining local validation behavior (missing field raises ValueError naming it), live controller verification, and the exact required fields. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but it provides substantial behavioral detail for a create operation.

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 the core action and then uses a compact, labeled structure for parameters. Every clause provides useful information: host formats, site formats, required config, validation behavior, and optional fields. There is no filler.

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?

The description is complete enough to call the tool correctly: all three required parameters are explained, the nested voucher_config is described with mandatory and optional keys, and the return value is handled by the existing output schema. It is slightly open-ended about the full set of optional voucher_config fields, but the "etc." covers that without bloating the description.

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 fully compensate. It does: host is explained as console name/ID/composite ID with format, site as name/ID, and voucher_config is broken down into required name/timeLimitMinutes with units and optional fields. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Generate hotspot vouchers for a site." This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list/get/delete hotspot-voucher tools and from the broader create_hotspot_operator tool.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: it explains what host, site, and voucher_config mean and what is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the creation purpose and parameter guidance are unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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