Create a New Empty Network

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: exactly what is lost (unsaved changes to the current network), that there is no automatic save prompt, and a mandatory confirmation protocol before calling. This is substantive context beyond structured fields.

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 critical warning and the confirmation instruction are front-loaded where they will be read first, and the sentences are tight. The two example utterances ('Start a fresh topology', 'Clear the workspace') are mildly redundant with the opening sentence and don't earn much space.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs to act safely is present: the effect, the data-loss risk, and the required user confirmation step. Return values are covered by the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing parameter-related the description could usefully add. It correctly stays silent on arguments rather than inventing any.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Close the current network and start a new, empty one.' The 'without a save prompt' qualifier distinguishes it from open_network_file and the single sentence makes the net effect unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: ask the user 'Discard the current network?' or offer save_network_file first, and wait for a 'yes' before invoking. That is a named alternative plus a precondition, not just implied usage.

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