arcane_create_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Create a new network' but doesn't mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, what happens on duplicate names, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is extremely minimal and could include more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return values, error behaviors, or any additional context like whether the environment must exist. The schema covers parameters, but the overall tool context is incomplete for an agent to use it confidently.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it just says 'create a network.' Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 a new network in an environment.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('network') and scopes it to an environment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, remove, or prune networks.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a creation tool, so the usage is somewhat self-evident, but no context is given about when creating a network is appropriate.

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