edit_lab_network

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

Despite no annotations being provided (so description carries full burden), the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: partial-update semantics, the critical timing constraint for visibility (must be set after creation and wiring, not at creation), and that this is what connect_interface uses internally. It even confirms this against a working reference implementation. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool.

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 optimally concise: a one-sentence overview of the edit action and partial-update semantics, a reference to sibling patterns, a key behavioral note about connect_interface usage, then a cleanly organized Args section. No superfluous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has 11 parameters (complex), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates. It provides comprehensive parameter documentation, usage context (partial-update, timing constraint), and cross-references to sibling tools. The output schema exists but the description doesn't need to cover return values.

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%, meaning the schema has no descriptions at all. The description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with type info (0/1 for visibility/hideme, 'e.g. Solid' for style) and usage context. The visibility parameter gets special treatment with the timing caveat. The arg docstring effectively replicates and enhances the schema, justifying a top score.

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 explicitly states the action (edit an existing network by id) and the resource (lab network). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it follows the same partial-update pattern as edit_lab/edit_lab_node, and differentiates from creation tools by the critical timing detail about visibility. The verb 'edit' combined with 'partial-update' 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?

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Only supplied fields are changed' establishes the partial-update semantics. It explicitly names sibling tools 'connect_interface' as an internal user and gives a concrete use case (setting visibility=0 on a node-to-node bridge). It even includes a confirmed implementation detail about timing (must be done after creation and wiring, not at creation time), which prevents misuse.

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