cloud_create_network

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or failure modes. The only additional context is the ip_range example.

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 concise at one sentence plus an example, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) without adding length.

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 6 parameters including nested objects (subnets, routes, labels) and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to use these parameters or what the output contains.

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 0%, and the description only adds meaning for ip_range (via an example). The other five parameters (name, subnets, routes, expose_routes_to_vswitch, labels) are not described, leaving their purpose and format unclear.

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 tool creates a private network, with the verb 'Create' and resource 'private network'. It distinguishes from siblings like cloud_delete_network, cloud_get_network, and cloud_update_network by focusing on creation. The ip_range example adds specificity.

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 like cloud_add_network_subnet or cloud_update_network. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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