Manage AWS VPC networks by creating, listing, or deleting virtual private clouds with configurable subnets, DNS settings, and tags.
Manage AWS VPC networks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| region | Yes | ||
| vpcId | No | ||
| cidrBlock | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| dnsSupport | No | ||
| dnsHostnames | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| subnets | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, destructive consequences of delete actions, or what happens when creating VPCs with specific configurations. The description is too generic to provide meaningful behavioral context.
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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (verb and resource) with zero wasted words. While under-specified, it's structurally efficient.
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 complex tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's scope, behavior, parameter usage, or expected outcomes. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant trial and error or external knowledge.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'action' values do, what 'cidrBlock' represents, how 'subnets' array should be structured, or any parameter relationships. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of 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 'Manage AWS VPC networks' states a general purpose (verb+resource) but is vague about what management entails. It doesn't specify the CRUD operations available or distinguish this from sibling AWS tools like aws_ec2 or aws_cloudformation that might also manage network-related resources.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling AWS tools, there's no indication of when aws_vpc is the right choice versus other infrastructure management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.