Attach public address to network

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

Annotations already declare destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds critical context: moving removes the prior target's use, permissions do not come from full/read defaults, backend enforces ownership and 2FA locks, and an accepted operation is pending rather than proof of connectivity. It also explains polling semantics and safe retry guidance, which is substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences carry important operational information given the absence of an output schema. However, the description is a dense wall of procedural text that could be more scannable with structure, so it falls short of ideal conciseness.

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 complex asynchronous mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: permission requirements, approval prerequisites, pending-operation semantics, polling behavior with next_check_seconds and reason_code, failure interpretation, and safe handling of transport uncertainty. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and monitor the operation correctly.

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 67%: address_id and network_id have schema descriptions, but expected_generation has none. The description mentions NETWORK generation, which hints at the generation parameter, but does not explain what expected_generation represents or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work and the description adds only marginal parameter meaning.

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 pair (attach or move) and resource (already-paid public address) with the exact target (owned network's NAT). It also clarifies scope by saying no purchase occurs, which distinguishes it from purchase or allocation tools and from sibling attach/detach operations.

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?

Provides clear prerequisites and permission context: read current capabilities and owned resource state first, obtain approval, and use networking:read or networking:manage. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use this tool, but the operational context is clear.

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