add_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a creation action and adds platform constraints, but does not mention prerequisites, side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the network already exists. While the core behavior is clear, deeper behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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 two crisp sentences with no filler. The core action and platform scoping are front-loaded, and the alternative guidance appears in the second sentence. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It lacks details on the meaning of 'name', acceptable values for 'family' (beyond the example), expected return or errors, and any relation to sibling tools like list_networks or set_network_ip. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It provides an example for 'family' (Ethernet) but gives no explanation for 'name'. This partial compensation leaves the semantics of 'name' entirely unaddressed, which is insufficient for an agent to construct correct arguments.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a logical network'. It adds platform context (Premium/Quantum) and clarifies that on M340/M580 the user should configure elsewhere, distinguishing the tool's purpose from alternative actions. This is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (Premium/Quantum platforms) and when not to (M340/M580, where communication should be configured on modules/DTMs). This provides concrete guidance on choosing between this tool and the alternative approach, though it doesn't name a specific sibling tool.

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