cloud_update_network

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

Annotations are missing entirely, so the description carries full burden. It only states what can be updated, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, mutability constraints, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is too brief for an update tool. It does not mention the return value (though an output schema exists), how partial updates work, or any error scenarios. More context is needed for reliable agent invocation.

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 description lists three updatable fields (name, labels, expose_routes_to_vswitch) matching the optional parameters, but omits network_id. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds some value by mapping fields, but lacks structural details (e.g., labels object schema) and does not explain parameter meaning beyond their titles.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'network', specifying the updatable fields (name, labels, vSwitch route exposure). This distinguishes it from creation and deletion tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools.

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, prerequisites (e.g., network must exist), or when not to use it. The description is purely functional with no usage context.

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