assign_instance_private_network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description need only add operational context — but it adds essentially nothing beyond restating the endpoint path. It does not say what happens if the instance is already a member, whether the action is reversible, what errors can occur, or what is returned.

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?

It is short, but the first line duplicates the title and the second line restates the first, so roughly half the text is redundant. The endpoint is front-loaded, which is good, but the space is spent on repetition rather than new information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter assignment operation with full schema documentation and annotations, the definition is adequate to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back (the private network, the instance, or nothing) and whether repeated calls are meaningful, given idempotentHint=false.

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 100%, so both required parameters (privateNetworkId, instanceId) plus x-trace-id are already fully documented in the input schema. The description only echoes them via the URL template; baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Add instance to a Private Network") and includes the concrete HTTP endpoint, so the agent knows exactly which API operation it wraps. The one clear sibling, unassign_instance_private_network, is implicitly distinguished by the verb, though it's never named.

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?

Usage is only implied by the operation name: assign an instance when it needs to join a private network. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. instance must exist, be in the same region), and no reference to the unassign sibling as the inverse operation.

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