network_connect

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds behavioral details: it attaches without restarting, sets DNS aliases, allows static IP assignment, and returns a boolean. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, followed by parameter details. It is slightly verbose but all information is relevant. Could be trimmed slightly but overall efficient.

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 8 parameters (2 required), the description covers every parameter, explains the return type (bool), and provides usage context. No output schema is present, but the description adequately describes what the tool returns. It is fully complete.

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%, but the description provides rich explanations for each parameter: id_or_name (network to connect), container (container to attach), aliases (extra DNS names), links (legacy, deprecated), ipv4_address (static IPv4), ipv6_address, link_local_ips, driver_opt (driver-specific options). This adds significant meaning beyond the type definitions.

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: 'Attach a running container to an additional network without restarting it.' It specifies the resource (container) and verb (attach), and distinguishes from sibling tools like network_disconnect by mentioning it as the undo operation.

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 says 'Use this to give a container access to services on a network it was not started with.' It also provides guidance on optional parameters like aliases, ipv4_address, and deprecation warning for links, plus mentions network_disconnect as the reverse operation.

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