create_network_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context such as persistence ('saved'), creation of a new profile, and uniqueness restrictions on the id. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the profile auto-activates), error behavior on duplicate ids, or permission requirements. This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses bullet lists for required fields and interface config requirements, followed by a concise Args section. Despite its length, it is information-dense without redundancy, appropriate for the complexity of the nested config object.

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 description provides sufficient guidance for constructing the config parameter, and an output schema exists so return value details are not required. It still lacks behavior notes about duplicate handling or activation side effects, but for the core task of invoking the tool with a valid config, it is complete enough. The presence of a nested schema would be ideal, but the prose covers it well.

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?

The input schema only declares an opaque 'config' object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by enumerating required top-level keys (id, namespaces, roots), their optionality, and the nested structure for interface configs with modes and security details. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema and gives the agent everything needed to construct a valid config.

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 tool creates a new saved network configuration profile, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_network_config, activate_network_config, and delete_network_config by emphasizing 'new' and 'saved', so an agent can select the right operation without inspecting other definitions.

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 gives clear context: it is for creating a new saved profile and includes constraints like id cannot be 'root' or 'default'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when to use update/activate instead, so while the context is clear, there are no exclusions or alternative routing instructions.

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