change_network_ip_range

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive write; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the extension-only rule (shortening the netmask, never shrinking) and the attachment precondition. It also discloses the return type (an Action). It stops short of 5 because nothing is said about whether the change is asynchronous, how long it takes to apply, or what error conditions arise.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, the hard constraint with a concrete 10.0.0.0/16 -> 10.0.0.0/15 example, and the prerequisite. Nothing is wasted and the key restriction is front-loaded after the purpose statement.

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 mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the operation's central constraint, its blocking precondition, and its return type. The remaining gap is operational detail — async behavior and failure modes — which is minor but not negligible for a network-mutating call.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the underlying semantics of ip_range — the same base address must be kept and only the netmask shortened — which clarifies valid values in a way the schema's short example does not. The ID parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

"Change a network's IP range" gives a specific verb and resource, and the extension-only rule makes the operation's scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling update_network, which an agent might otherwise consider for the same field, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states concrete preconditions: the network must have no attached servers or load balancers, and they must be detached first — a clear when-to-use gate. It does not name the sibling tools (detach_server_from_network / detach_load_balancer_from_network) that satisfy that prerequisite, leaving the routing step implicit.

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