network_connect

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds that the container is attached 'without restarting it' and returns a boolean. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects) are disclosed, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan. No redundancy.

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's complexity (8 parameters, container networking), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, return type, and references the undo tool. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 8 parameters, including purpose, defaults, and deprecation (e.g., 'links is a legacy feature'). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Description starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Attach a running container to an additional network without restarting it.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like network_disconnect and other network operations, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 states when to use: 'Use this to give a container access to services on a network it was not started with.' Also provides the reversal action: 'Use network_disconnect to undo.' This offers clear guidance on context and alternatives.

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