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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the server-side refusal precondition for non-empty networks, the required confirmation step, and the 'network.write' permission scope. These are behavioral facts not recoverable from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; the core action leads, followed by the precondition, the safety directive, and the permission scope. Every clause carries actionable content.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing: precondition, remediation path, user-confirmation requirement, and required scope are all present.

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 100% and the single 'vpc' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Private network id, as returned by list_vpcs or create_vpc'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the word 'empty', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Deletes an empty private network') and adds a scoping constraint ('empty') that distinguishes it from create_vpc, connect_vpc, disconnect_vpc, move_vpc, and the read-only get_vpc/list_vpcs siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not condition ('Refused while a machine is still on it'), the remedy ('disconnect or destroy those first'), and an interaction policy ('Ask the user first'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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