subnet_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It only labels it as '[WRITE][risk=medium]' but does not mention outcomes, reversibility, error behavior, or permissions required. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise with a clear structure: a header line followed by a list of arguments. It front-loads the risk and action, and every line serves a purpose. Minor redundancy in the arg list could be tightened.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and inputs adequately but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., need a cluster). This leaves gaps for an agent.

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, but the description adds meaning to all 5 parameters: e.g., 'name: New subnet name', 'cluster_ext_id: Target cluster extId (from cluster_list)'. This provides helpful context beyond the schema, though some constraints (e.g., VLAN ID range) are missing.

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 starts with '[WRITE][risk=medium] Create a subnet on a cluster.' clearly stating the action (create) and resource (subnet on a cluster). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subnet_list, subnet_get, subnet_delete.

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 gives basic parameter usage like 'target' being 'Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., use subnet_list to view subnets). Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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