add_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 usefully discloses that this is a mutating/overwriting operation requiring confirm=true, which is meaningful safety context, but it does not state what exactly is overwritten, required permissions, or reversibility.

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?

Two short lines, front-loading the purpose and the mandatory confirm requirement, followed by a concrete call example. Efficient with no filler, though the example is somewhat redundant with the stated requirement.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential confirm safety gate and an example call, but leaves the semantics of enable/comment and the exact overwrite behavior unexplained.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: the example clarifies macaddr and ipaddr formats and confirms that confirm is required. The enable and comment parameters get no explanation anywhere.

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+resource ('DHCP予約追加' / add DHCP reservation), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_reservations and delete_reservation. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It states a critical precondition — confirm=true is mandatory because the operation rewrites — which is genuine usage guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use vs. alternatives context (e.g., when to reserve vs. modify an existing lease), leaving selection between siblings implied.

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