bitpull_set_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important consequence: computers added this way 'can read the person's jobs,' which tells the agent this is an access-granting operation. However, it is silent on reversibility of removal, idempotency if the computer is already in the network, permission/auth requirements, and failure behavior.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the operation first, the consent-and-consequence caveat second. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, consent precondition, and the key side effect — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around removal semantics and expected response, but the complexity is low enough that this is close to sufficient.

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 50% — the 'inNetwork' boolean has no schema description, and the description's 'add ... or remove it' indirectly explains that the boolean selects direction. It also constrains 'computer' to the person's own machine, but the schema's special 'this' value is left unexplained.

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 gives a concrete verb pair (add / remove) and a concrete resource (one of the person's own computers on their network), so an agent can tell what will change. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling bitpull_network (which the schema merely references as an id source), so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is an explicit gate — 'Do it only when the person asks' — which tells the agent this is not a self-initiated action. That is a real when/when-not rule, but no alternative tool is named for the read-side case (e.g. just listing the network), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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