Delete private network

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent/openWorld): it discloses quota release timing, the required networking:manage scope, backend ownership/feature/2FA enforcement, and the asynchronous pending-not-success semantics. It also details polling via in_progress/reason_code and warns against automatic retry, adding genuine behavioral context not present in 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?

Front-loads the core action and precondition, then layers permissions, async semantics and recovery guidance; nearly every sentence carries operational value. It is dense and long, with a fairly extended polling clause, but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return semantics (operation/resource with in_progress and reason_code), how to poll with next_check_seconds, and what constitutes failure versus pending. Combined with the permission and idempotent-recovery guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up 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%, so the schema already documents network_id and idempotencyKey. The description reinforces idempotency-key reuse semantics but never explains expected_generation, leaving one required parameter's meaning to the schema alone; the coverage is mid-range so the baseline 3 fits.

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+resource ('Request deletion of ... network') and narrows scope with the 'empty network' precondition, which cleanly separates it from retry_private_network, get_private_network and create_private_network. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 clear preconditions ('Referenced appliances/ports may prevent deletion') and an explicit read-first workflow ('Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change'). It stops short of naming the specific read/capability sibling tools, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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