Apply or remove a scoped NetStream destination and local exporter-name identity on H3C devices, binding interfaces and monitor settings for traffic export configuration.
Apply/remove a scoped NetStream destination with local exporter-name identity.
Named NetFlow monitor/object equivalence and actual collector delivery remain unverified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| topology | Yes | ||
| parameters | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context: named monitor/object equivalence and actual collector delivery remain unverified, warning the agent that success does not guarantee traffic reaches the collector. It doesn't cover the dry_run escape hatch or rollback behavior.
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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the caveat second; nothing is redundant.
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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with a deeply nested request object, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description says nothing about the dry_run/remove interplay, operation_key idempotency, or what a successful apply returns. The verification caveat is good but far from sufficient.
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% and there is a nested NetstreamRequest with ~11 fields (device, name, remove, version, monitors, udp_port, interfaces, source_port, operation_key, destination_ip, timeout_seconds). The description only hints that 'name' is the local exporter identity; dry_run, remove, operation_key, and interface bindings are left entirely to the raw 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?
States a specific verb-pair (apply/remove) and resource (scoped NetStream destination), plus a scoping qualifier (local exporter-name identity). It is distinguishable from siblings like hcl_apply_nat or hcl_apply_acl by domain object, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus the other apply_* tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of how the remove mode trades off against a separate removal tool. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.