create_nat_rule

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

Annotations indicate a write operation with no destruction or idempotency, and openWorldHint=true. The [WRITE] prefix confirms the write nature, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but leaves gaps.

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 concise, uses a clear 'Args:' list format, and front-loads the purpose with a [WRITE] marker. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Parameters are well-documented, but the description omits return value information (no output schema) and does not mention error conditions or prerequisites. For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 carries the full burden. It explains each parameter's meaning, required conditions, and defaults (e.g., source_network required for SNAT). This provides critical context absent from the 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a NAT rule on a Tier-1 gateway'), with a [WRITE] prefix for emphasis. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_nat_rule and list_nat_rules.

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 lists parameter details and defaults, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., static routes) or any context around prerequisites or exclusions.

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