delete_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects dependent resources (e.g., subnets, attached servers), or has rate limits. 'Delete' implies destructive mutation, but behavioral details like confirmation prompts or error conditions are missing, leaving significant gaps.

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—three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'delete'), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what a network is, deletion effects, prerequisites, error handling, and return values. For a mutation tool with one parameter, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for safe use.

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 0%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., network ID), its format, or where to find it. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, making parameter usage unclear.

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 'Delete a network' states the verb (delete) and resource (network), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_firewall or delete_server, nor specify what constitutes a 'network' in this context. While it avoids tautology, it lacks specificity about scope or type of network being deleted.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., network must exist, be detached from servers), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose other tools like update_network or detach_server_from_network. The description offers only the bare action without context.

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