attach_network_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: detaching from current VPC while leaving public eth0 untouched. It also states the permission requirement and writes nature. No contradictions. Minor missing details like synchronous/asynchronous behavior, but good for a simple mutation.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states the action and side effect. Second sentence covers permission and parameter guidance. No fluff or redundant information.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, permissions, parameter sources, and side effects. It could mention return value or async behavior, but omission is acceptable for a straightforward write operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the source for each parameter: 'id is the target VPC from list_networks' and 'serverId is the Nova server id to move.' This goes beyond the schema descriptions and helps the agent understand where to obtain values.

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 clearly states the action: 'Move a cloud VM into a private network (VPC), detaching it from its current VPC.' It specifies the resource (cloud VM) and the context (private network/VPC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_volume or attach_reserved_ip.

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 mentions required scope (services:write) and explains where to get parameter values ('id is the target VPC from list_networks; serverId is the Nova server id to move'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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