connect_network

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are present but minimal. The description adds behavioral details: container not restarted, aliases provide extra DNS names, IP assignment options, and return type bool. Non-destructive modification is conveyed.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, a paragraph explaining use and parameters, and a clear list of arguments. No unnecessary information, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, use case, and alternative. It specifies the return type (bool). Minor omissions like error conditions or behavior when already connected are acceptable for a tool with clear annotations and output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains all 8 parameters, including their purpose (e.g., aliases set DNS names, ipv4_address for static IP, links legacy). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Attach a running container to an additional network without restarting it.' It distinguishes from siblings like disconnect_network and create_network by mentioning the specific action and use case.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('give a container access to services on a network it was not started with') and provides an alternative (disconnect_network to undo). Also gives guidance on parameters like aliases, IP addresses, and deprecation of links.

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