detach_server_from_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 basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, is destructive (likely yes, as it changes network configuration), has side effects, or what happens on success/failure.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It lacks crucial context about behavioral impact, error conditions, and usage scenarios, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke it 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' parameter has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the parameters are straightforward (server ID and network ID). With two required parameters and partial schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't 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 ('detach') and resource ('server from a network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach_iso' or 'detach_volume', which follow the same pattern but target different resources.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be powered off), consequences (e.g., network connectivity loss), or related tools like 'attach_server_to_network' for reattachment.

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