add_ppp_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the write gate (server must run with MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true), the preview/confirm dry-run behavior, duplicate-name error semantics ('never creates a duplicate or resets an existing secret's password'), and the deliberate password-echo-in-result-but-not-audit asymmetry.

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?

Front-loaded and well organized into purpose / password-handling / write-gating paragraphs, but it leans on cross-references ('See guard.add_ppp_secret's docstring', the add_hotspot_user comparison) that carry little value for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 an 8-parameter guarded write with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, confirmation flow, failure modes, and an explanation of the surprising password field in the result. Return values need not be described since an output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and largely does: it defines the login semantics of name/password, supplies the enum values for `service` that the schema itself lacks (pppoe/pptp/l2tp/ovpn/sstp/any), and explains `profile`, `remote_address`, `comment`, and `confirm`. Only `device_name` is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a PPP/PPPoE secret') and even names the underlying RouterOS path `/ppp/secret add`, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling readers `ppp_secrets`/`ppp_active` and the writer `remove_ppp_secret`.

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?

Gives strong when-to-use context: it is a guarded WRITE requiring MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true, and it prescribes the two-step flow (confirm=False for preview, confirm=True to commit). It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to siblings (e.g. use ppp_secrets to inspect, remove_ppp_secret to delete) when this tool is the wrong choice.

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