add_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It discloses the persistence path (~/.qubic-mcp/networks.json) and implies the network is not activated immediately. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, validation, or failure conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only essential information (storage location and activation follow-up). Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, where it persists, and the required next step (activation). It does not mention duplicate handling or success/failure responses, but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate and slightly above the minimum viable.

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?

The schema provides 100% documentation of all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it gives an example of a name and the storage purpose, but does not explain parameter relationships or constraints not already in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('custom Qubic network'), provides a concrete example ('local lite node'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting that activation is handled by switch_network. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states the storage location and explicitly directs the user to use switch_network to activate the saved network, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not include explicit exclusions (e.g., duplicate handling), but the guidance is sufficient for a simple add operation.

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