vm_network_config

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the default (OFF), the authorization requirement (user's OK), the implementation limitation (NAT only, bridge raises), the timing semantics (deferred to next boot), and the verification path (vm_status). This is substantial context for a 3-param mutation tool. Minor gap: no explicit mention of reversibility or failure behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and default, then implementation limits, then timing/verification. Efficient, though the parenthetical about bridge is slightly tangential.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers timing, authorization, and implementation limits, but omits parameter semantics (critical given 0% schema coverage) and any note on what happens if 'enable' is true without 'nat' or vice versa.

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 compensate. It mentions the 'network flag' and NAT but does not explain the three parameters (nat, enable, name) or their defaults/interactions. An agent cannot infer that 'enable' is the primary toggle and 'nat' selects network mode from the description alone.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (set the VM's network flag) and clarifies scope limitations (only NAT implemented, bridge unsupported). It distinguishes itself from runtime-control siblings like vm_boot by clarifying the config-vs-runtime relationship, though it doesn't name explicit alternatives.

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 defines when the change takes effect (next vm_boot, not a running VM) and points to vm_status for verification. It states a prerequisite (user's OK per RULES.md). Missing explicit pointers to alternative network tools, but usage context is clear.

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