create_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new network,' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., network configuration changes), rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words—and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 complexity (a creation tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema) and the lack of annotations (0% coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for safe and effective use. For a tool that creates network resources, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (name, ip_range, labels) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'name', 'ip_range', or 'labels' represent, their formats, constraints, or examples. This leaves all parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema 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 ('Create') and resource ('a new network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_network' or 'delete_network' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what a 'network' entails in this context beyond the basic verb+resource.

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., needing specific permissions or resources), when it's appropriate (e.g., for setting up infrastructure), or what to do instead in different scenarios (e.g., use 'update_network' for modifications). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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