network_create_network

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Create a new network' but does not disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing), or the structure of the response. The description is too brief to provide adequate behavioral insight.

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 description is very short and front-loaded with the main action. It includes a structured 'Args' section that aids readability. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, preventing a higher score.

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?

The tool has two parameters, one of which is a nested object with no constraints (additionalProperties: true). The description does not explain what the response contains (despite an output schema existing), nor does it provide sufficient guidance for the free-form 'data' parameter. Critical information about the creation process 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'site_id: The site ID' and 'data: Network configuration (name, vlanId, etc.)'. This provides some context beyond the raw schema types but lacks detail on constraints, formats, or required fields in data. It is helpful but insufficient for full clarity.

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 new network' with a specific resource ('on a local UniFi site'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like network_update_network and network_delete_network by indicating 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_update_network for modifications). The description only states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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