delete_lab_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals critical traits: matches on name only (not id), requires a confirm flag to actually delete, and supports multiple selections. This is transparent for a destructive operation. It does not mention reversibility, side effects, or permissions, but the core workflow is well disclosed.

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 reasonably concise given the amount of detail. It front-loads the core action and then uses a structured Args list. The reference to 'see module docs' is a slight brevity trade-off. The flow notation ('Search -> select -> confirm') is efficient but could be clearer. Overall, it is well-organized without being overly verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, multi-step confirmation, output schema exists), the description covers the main workflow, parameter meanings, and behavioral pattern. It does not discuss error conditions or what happens if no match is found, and it defers to module docs for deeper detail. Still, it provides a solid foundation for correct tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by providing an Args section that explains each parameter: lab_path (full path to .unl file), name (network name or fragment), selection (numbers/names when multiple matched), and confirm (boolean to confirm deletion). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 (delete), resource (network(s)), and scope (from a lab), with the specific matching mechanism (name substring, case-insensitive). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_lab (which deletes a whole lab) or delete_lab_node (which deletes nodes).

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 outlines a multi-step flow (search -> select -> confirm) and explains when to use the selection parameter and confirm flag. It mentions that multiple networks can be deleted per call. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., delete_lab_node) or when not to use it, which would improve clarity.

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