Change Network Protection

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) behavior. Description adds that it guards against accidental destruction, which aligns with annotations. No additional behavioral details like side effects or required permissions.

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?

Single sentence of 14 words, directly conveying purpose and effect. No filler, front-loaded with action and resource.

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 it's a simple toggle with no output schema and good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the network must already exist, but this is implied by the resource type.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (id: Network ID, delete: If true prevents deletion). Description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema; it simply summarizes the boolean parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool enables or disables delete protection on a network, using specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (network protection). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on network protection, matching the naming pattern of other protection tools like hetzner_change_server_protection.

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 other protection tools or manual deletion prevention. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., network must exist) or context where toggling protection is appropriate.

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