Set private network names

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses that omitted aliases are removed and may stop resolving, that ownership/feature/2FA locks are enforced backend-side, that acceptance is pending rather than proof of connectivity, and it gives a full async lifecycle contract (in_progress flag, reason_code/reason_kind semantics, next_check_seconds polling, preserving reason_code). It also spells out the retry policy on transport uncertainty. This is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and destructive semantics before permissions and the async protocol, so the critical information comes first. It is long and dense (the polling/reason_code passage is a wall of procedural text), but nearly every sentence carries operational meaning rather than filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent async network mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, replacement semantics, backend enforcement, operation polling, failure interpretation, and retry safety. There is essentially nothing an agent needs in order to call and follow up on this tool correctly that is missing.

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 only 33% (only network_id is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that the call is a full replacement of the zone label and alias list and that omitted aliases are dropped. It does not, however, clarify the relationship between zone_label and the alias names or the alias name format, which remain schema-only.

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 first sentence gives a precise verb and resource: 'Replace the complete internal DNS zone label and alias list,' and the second clarifies scope ('these names resolve only inside this network'), which implicitly separates it from public DNS tools like set_private_network_dns. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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?

It states prerequisites and conditions well: explicit networking:read vs networking:manage scopes, that 'full/read defaults do not grant networking', and that the agent must read capabilities/owned state first and get approval. It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case.

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