arvan_create_private_network

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, indicating it is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds parameter details but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like idempotency or consequences of using it. No contradiction with 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?

Description is concise with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-pointed argument list. Front-loaded and efficient: every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

While all 9 parameters are described, the description omits return value information (e.g., what is returned upon success) and does not mention behavior on duplicate names or prerequisites. For a network creation tool, this is a minor gap, but overall fairly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to provide meaning. It does so thoroughly: explains each parameter (e.g., subnet_ip: 'CIDR for the subnet, e.g. 192.168.0.0/24', dhcp_start/dhcp_end: 'Optional DHCP allocation range'). Adds significant value beyond titles and types.

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 clearly states 'Create a private network (subnet)', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_server, create_volume, etc., by focusing on network creation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., arvan_update_subnet, arvan_list_networks). It lacks explicit context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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