Update Network

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by naming the updatable fields (name, labels, expose_routes_to_vswitch), which informs the agent about what modifications are possible. It does not mention preconditions or side effects, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, listing key properties. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding.

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 simple update tool with four parameters (one required), the description adequately states what can be updated. No output schema exists, but the return value is not critical for an idempotent update. Could mention that changes are applied immediately, but overall sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions three of the four parameters (name, labels, expose_routes_to_vswitch) by purpose but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema descriptions provide.

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 'Update properties of a network such as name, labels, or vSwitch route exposure.' It specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'network', and lists the specific modifiable properties, distinguishing it from create/delete operations.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to modify existing network properties) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools like change_network_protection exist, but no guidance is provided.

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