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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which signals a destructive operation. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: that all instances are automatically unassigned upon deletion. This explains a key consequence that the annotations do not specify, enhancing transparency. It does not mention other potential effects like irreversibility or associated resource cleanup, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 two sentences but contains redundancy: 'Delete existing Private Network by id' is repeated as 'Delete existing Virtual Private Cloud by id' in the same description. This could be condensed into one clear sentence. While it is relatively short, the repetition wastes an opportunity for additional useful information.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description mentions the critical side effect (auto-unassignment of instances), which is essential. However, it omits other potentially relevant context such as whether the operation is permanent, any permission requirements, or the shape of the response. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only reinforces that deletion is 'by id', implicitly referring to privateNetworkId, but does not explain the purpose of x-request-id or x-trace-id, nor does it clarify formatting or requiredness beyond the schema. This is insufficient for filling the schema's descriptive gap.

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: 'Delete existing Private Network by id', with a specific verb (delete), resource (Private Network/Virtual Private Cloud), and scope (by id). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like patchPrivateNetwork and unassignInstancePrivateNetwork by noting the automatic unassignment of instances, which is a unique consequence not present in other tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when deleting a private network, and it implicitly communicates that prior unassignment of instances is unnecessary because the tool 'automatically unassign[s] all instances from it'. This informs the agent not to call unassignInstancePrivateNetwork separately. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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