cloud_add_network_subnet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or constraints (e.g., whether subnet must be unique within network, or what happens on conflict).

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 two-sentence structure is efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the second sentence could be integrated into the first or expanded to provide more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, many with defaults, and an output schema exists, the description should still cover relationships between parameters and valid values (e.g., network_zone). It lacks completeness for a parameter-rich tool.

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 description should compensate. It only clarifies the 'type' parameter values, but network_id, network_zone, ip_range, and vswitch_id are not explained. This adds minimal meaning beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Add a subnet to a network') and specifies valid type values ('cloud' | 'server' | 'vswitch'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool cloud_delete_network_subnet. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a subnet in this context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cloud_create_network or cloud_attach_server_to_network. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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