add_vlan

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 guard (MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true), the confirm-gated preview, duplicate-name rejection, and the fact that the parent interface existence is not validated by the tool. This is exactly the mutation-safety context an agent needs.

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 with the core action and the underlying CLI command, then walks through parameters, then the guard. Slightly dense but every clause (interface-not-verified, duplicate rejection, confirm semantics) adds real value. Could be tightened by not repeating 'call again' phrasing.

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?

Covers all required params, the write-guard behavior, the preview/commit flow, duplicate-name handling, and the incomplete validation caveat. Output schema exists for the return shape, so the description needn't explain the response. A 7-param write tool with 0% schema coverage is fully specified.

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 compensate and it does: it defines name, vlan_id range (1-4094, IEEE 802.1Q tag), interface (parent interface with examples bridge1/ether2), and marks mtu/comment as optional. The only parameter not described is confirm, which is covered under behavioral transparency.

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 VLAN interface), gives the underlying RouterOS command (/interface/vlan add), and names each required parameter. Siblings like add_wireguard_interface or add_static_dhcp_lease are clearly distinct, and remove_vlan is the inverse operation.

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?

Explains the confirm=False / confirm=True workflow explicitly, and that the tool is blocked unless MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true. It does not name a direct alternative for VLAN creation (there isn't one), but does route the agent through the preview-then-commit pattern.

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