create_sdn_subnet

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states 'Create' (mutation) but omits details about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or failure handling. The minimal description does not adequately disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 front-loaded purpose statement and a structured 'Args:' list. It contains no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, which prevents a perfect score.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema (context says true), the description is incomplete. It does not cover expected behavior when required params are missing, what the return value contains, or how the tool integrates with related operations (e.g., listing subnets). The agent may struggle to use the tool correctly with only this description.

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 must explain parameters. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'subnet: Subnet CIDR (e.g. ''10.0.0.0/24'')'). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, but the explanations are minimal and do not cover format constraints or semantics for all parameters (e.g., 'snat: Enable SNAT' lacks context).

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 'Create a subnet for an SDN VNet', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_sdn_vnet' (which creates the VNet itself) and 'list_sdn_subnets' (which lists), though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the VNet must exist), when not to use it, or any context about creation order. The absence of usage guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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