delete_network_subnet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite to detach servers first, which is valuable context about destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to other resources attached to the subnet, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a parenthetical note. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, and the prerequisite warning is efficiently included. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it mentions the server detachment prerequisite, it doesn't cover other critical aspects: whether the operation is idempotent, what error conditions exist, what the return value contains, or what happens to other subnet resources. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation, more behavioral context is needed.

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 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'ip_range') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 ('Delete') and target ('a subnet from a network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_network' (which deletes entire networks) by specifying subnet deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what happens to the subnet's resources beyond the parenthetical note about servers.

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 implied guidance with the parenthetical '(detach servers from it first)', suggesting a prerequisite condition for successful use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detach_server_from_network' or provide clear exclusion criteria. No explicit comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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