attach_server_to_network

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. 'Attach' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., network downtime), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings beyond the schema, error conditions, or return values. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively and safely.

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 50% (only 'network' and 'ip' have descriptions), and the description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (server ID), the format of 'alias_ips', or constraints on 'ip' assignment. The baseline is 3 because the schema provides some documentation, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('attach') and resource ('server to a network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'detach_server_from_network' by specifying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other network-related tools like 'create_network' or 'add_network_subnet'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must exist, network must be available), exclusions (e.g., cannot attach to multiple networks simultaneously), or related tools like 'detach_server_from_network' for reversal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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