tvh_create_network

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: existing networks are never silently reused, and delivery-specific fields depend on what the build supports.

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 short, front-loads the core action, and each sentence contributes useful information. The only slight inefficiency is the vague phrase 'as supported by this build', but overall it is well-structured.

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?

The tool has a nested free-form settings object and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it should more clearly explain how to structure settings and what dry_run does. It is adequate but leaves gaps that could cause an agent to invoke the tool incorrectly.

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 explains that class_name comes from network_types and gives example settings fields (networkname, enabled, orbital_pos, scanfile), but it does not explicitly map those fields into the settings object and never mentions the dry_run parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a network using a class/schema from network_types. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like tvh_list_networks or tvh_create_mux, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 implied through the reference to getting a class/schema from network_types, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The note about existing networks never being silently reused adds useful context but is behavioral rather than a usage rule.

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