network_connect

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it works without restarting, aliases add DNS names, IPs can be explicitly assigned or auto-assigned, and links are deprecated. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra detail beyond the structured metadata.

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-organized with a summary sentence, usage guidance, and an args list. It is somewhat lengthy for the tool's simplicity, but every sentence contributes value, including the deprecated-links warning and the undo pointer.

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 and nested objects, the description covers the main purpose, each parameter, the return value (bool), and how to undo the operation. It does not describe error conditions or prerequisites, but the stated behaviors are sufficient for a network attach operation with a clear undo path.

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%, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'args' section that meaningfully describes all 8 parameters, clarifying their purpose and optionality (e.g., 'omit to let the driver assign one'), fully compensating for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Attach a running container to an additional network without restarting it.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like network_create, network_remove, and network_disconnect.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to give a container access to services on a network it was not started with' and points to 'network_disconnect' as the way to undo. It also advises that 'links' is deprecated and prefers DNS aliases, providing clear usage guidance.

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