add_network_subnet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'add' (implying mutation) and gives an example, but lacks critical details: required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., overlapping IP ranges), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Add a subnet to a network') and includes a helpful example in parentheses. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling), output expectations, and sufficient usage guidance. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 80%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds marginal value by implying 'ip_range' is optional ('omit for auto /24'), which aligns with schema details. However, it doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., 'vswitch_id' dependency on 'type') or semantics beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Add a subnet') and resource ('to a network'), with a specific example ('private networking 10.0.0.0/16 in a zone'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_network' (creating vs. modifying) and 'delete_network_subnet' (add vs. delete), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from similar tools like 'attach_server_to_network'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The example hints at usage for private networking, but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., network must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_network'. Usage is implied rather than clearly defined, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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