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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation is a hot-add with no restart, that repeat connects are safe because the same address returns, that manual configuration requires in-guest address setting, and the required network.write scope. The only gap is nothing about failure behavior when no address is free.

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-loads the core behavior in the first sentence and keeps the whole thing to three short sentences. The 'configuration: manual' fragment is cryptic and refers to nothing in the schema, costing a point.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description does the main work: hot-add semantics, scope, and repeat-connect behavior. It leaves open what happens on address exhaustion and never resolves the unexplained 'configuration' concept, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented there, including the 'next free one' default. The description adds only a vague notion of 'sets its address' and a dangling 'configuration: manual' reference that matches no parameter in 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?

'Hot-adds a card on the private network and sets its address' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly separates this from disconnect_vpc or attach_firewall. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'configuration: manual' note and 'Connecting again returns the same address' give some usage context, but the description never says when to use this versus disconnect_vpc or when to prefer specifying an ip versus letting the default free address be picked. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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