subnet_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a risk grading ([risk=medium]) not present in annotations, which is genuine added context, but it says nothing about failure modes, name-uniqueness constraints, or reversibility.

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 write/risk tag is front-loaded and the Args block is dense and scannable with no filler sentences. It is slightly longer than strictly needed because two of the arg notes restate schema defaults.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers all inputs, the operation's nature, and a risk level, while annotations cover the safety hints. Missing only secondary details such as idempotency behavior or error conditions, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents all five parameters with meaningful semantics: value provenance ('from cluster_list', 'from config'), purpose of vlan_id, and the omit-for-default behavior of target. Defaults for subnet_type and target duplicate the schema, but the provenance and intent notes go beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a subnet on a cluster'), which is unambiguous against siblings like subnet_list, subnet_get, and subnet_delete. It does not explicitly name or route away from any sibling, but the verb+resource pairing is clear enough to select it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the arg hints imply a prerequisite chain ('cluster_ext_id: Target cluster extId (from cluster_list)'), telling the agent it must resolve a cluster first. That is useful but partial; nothing says when this should be preferred over other subnet operations.

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