Attach Server to Network

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds that optional IP assignments are possible, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like whether attaching affects running services, requires the server to be powered off, or if it overwrites existing network config. Annotations already cover safety, so the description adds minimal value.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core action and optional capabilities without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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?

The description lacks important context for a mutation tool with no output schema. It does not explain return values, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., server and network must exist), or whether the operation is reversible. Given the complexity of network attachment and the lack of output schema, the description should provide more guidance.

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 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description reiterates that ip, alias_ips, and ip_range are optional, aligning with the schema. This adds context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (attach a server to a private network) and optionally mentions assigning IPs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like detach_server_from_network or attach_volume. The verb+resource+target structure is specific and 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assign_floating_ip for public IPs, or attach_lb_to_network). It also does not specify prerequisites such as server and network existence or whether the server should be powered off.

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