cloud_insts_ifaces_att

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose the side effects of attaching an interface (e.g., mutation, permissions, or potential consequences). For a write operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the proxy nature. However, it could be more structured by adding a clear action statement. It avoids fluff but omits crucial details.

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?

With 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It only covers ID resolution, leaving the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and outcome unexplained.

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 0%. The description only addresses project_id and region_id, ignoring the other 13 parameters (e.g., instance_id, ddos_profile, security_groups). No meaning is added beyond the schema's structural information.

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 'Proxy for cloud.instances.interfaces.attach', which coupled with the tool name implies attaching an interface to an instance. However, it does not explicitly state the action, relying on the proxy reference. This is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 provides explicit, actionable guidance on resolving project_id and region_id, including fallback steps to default project and region. It distinguishes when to use resolution tools versus this tool.

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