Attach network VPN gateway

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the operation recreates the gateway and interrupts connections, that it requires explicit networking:read/networking:manage scopes (and that default scopes do not grant networking), that the backend enforces ownership/feature/2FA locks, and how to interpret pending vs failed states. It also details idempotency-key recovery behavior on transport uncertainty, which annotations alone do not convey.

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 purpose and its disruptive consequence are front-loaded, followed by auth, preconditions, and result-interpretation guidance. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information for a destructive, idempotent operation, so little is wasted.

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?

Annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile and the schema fully documents all three parameters, yet the description still supplies the missing operational context: interruption warning, auth scope requirements, pending-vs-failure semantics, polling cadence, and recovery rules. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is absent.

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 baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds usage semantics for idempotencyKey ('reuse only the original key and unchanged request; never automatically retry') and implies that gateway_id/network_id must reference owned resources. This meaningfully extends the schema's field-level documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach or move an account VPN to an owned network') and adds a gating condition ('only when standalone attachment is advertised'). It clearly implies the inverse of the sibling detach_network_vpn_gateway without naming it explicitly, so sibling differentiation is present but not stated outright.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('only when standalone attachment is advertised'), a prerequisite sequence ('Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change'), and a confirmation requirement. It does not name alternative tools or spell out when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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