Create Network

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that the tool returns the created record with the assigned id and that validation failures yield a 422 with the offending field named. This adds concrete behavioral context about return values and error handling.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core action, provides a concise definition, then covers return and error behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the 'Operation class: Create' line is a clear, unnecessary-but-nice tag.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value, error behavior, and domain context. It does not explicitly state which fields are required, but the schema covers that. Slightly more detail on prerequisites or side effects could push it to 5, but it remains complete for typical 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 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all parameters (e.g., CIDR format, company_id resolution, location_id caveats, network_type ambiguity). The description adds minimal parameter detail beyond echoing the network concept, but the schema carries the burden, warranting the baseline score.

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 specific action ('Create a new network in Hudu') and defines what a network is (a CIDR-form subnet documented in Hudu). It distinguishes from creating IP addresses by noting individual hosts are separate ip_address records, and the 'Operation class: Create' reinforces the action.

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 explains that networks are IP ranges and explicitly mentions that individual hosts are separate ip_address records created with hudu_create_ip_address, serving as an alternative. The schema further advises resolving company names with hudu_list_companies, giving clear when-to-use context and prerequisites.

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