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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the join-then-leave ordering that prevents the machine being cut off, address-ending preservation when free, and the required network.write scope.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operational mechanism and followed by the scope constraint. No wasted wording.

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 3-integer, fully required schema with no output schema, the description covers the behavioral essentials an agent needs. It could say more about failure modes (e.g., what happens if the machine isn't on 'vpc'), but it is adequate.

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 each parameter ('to', 'vm', 'vpc') is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no field-level detail such as whether 'vpc' is validated against the machine's current network.

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 — it joins the target network then leaves the current one, moving a machine between private networks. This clearly separates it from connect_vpc/disconnect_vpc, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is implied by the mechanism and the 'network.write' scope, but the description never states when to prefer this over connect_vpc plus disconnect_vpc, or any prerequisites (e.g., machine must be on the source network given in 'vpc').

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