network_disconnect

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the container keeps running, other network attachments remain, and only this endpoint is removed. It also explains the relationship to network deletion. While annotations indicate this is not read-only, the description clarifies the precise side effect without contradicting them.

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 compact and well-organized with a clear summary, an args section, and a returns section. It avoids unnecessary filler. However, the Args section is incomplete because it omits id_or_name, which slightly undermines the structural completeness.

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?

While the description covers the core action and key behavioral implications, it fails to document the required id_or_name parameter, leaving the agent unable to correctly formulate a call without external knowledge. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for this missing required parameter explanation.

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 document all parameters, but it omits the required id_or_name parameter entirely. It explains container and force with meaningful detail, but an agent cannot determine what id_or_name refers to from the description or schema, which is a critical gap for a required argument.

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 begins with a concise, specific statement: 'Disconnect a container from a network.' It clearly identifies the action, the resource, and the scope of the operation. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings by being called the reverse of network_connect and a prerequisite for network_remove.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by naming related tools: it is the reverse of network_connect, and it should be used before network_remove because a network with connected containers cannot be deleted. This gives the agent clear routing logic and avoids confusion with adjacent network operations.

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