hcloud_create_network

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the key lifecycle constraint that `ip_range` can only be extended later, never reduced, which is a genuine irreversibility trait an agent should know before calling. It stops short of covering auth/permission needs or that creation is asynchronous and returns an action.

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?

Four short paragraphs, front-loaded with the verb+resource, followed by the constraints that matter most at call time and cross-links to the follow-up actions. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct constraint or pointer.

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 single-`body` create tool with no output schema, the description covers the immutability of `ip_range` and the subnet default, which are the highest-value gaps. It does not mention that the call is asynchronous / returns an action to poll (relevant given hcloud_wait_action exists in the sibling set), nor any permission requirements, leaving the agent to infer the post-create workflow.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is reported at 0% (the `body` wrapper is undescribed), but the nested properties are richly documented in the schema itself. The description adds real semantics on top: the extend-only rule for `ip_range`, and the default that an unspecified subnet `ip_range` gets the first available /24 — the latter is not present in the schema. It leaves name, labels, routes objects, vswitch_id and expose_routes_to_vswitch entirely to the schema, so a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a Network"), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from hcloud_get_network, hcloud_update_network, hcloud_list_networks and hcloud_delete_network by name alone. The opening line is somewhat redundant ("Create a Network" followed by "Creates a [Network]"), and there is no explicit sibling routing, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the references to the add-subnet and add-route actions, telling the agent this is the creation entry point and later modifications go elsewhere. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives, nor states prerequisites or what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names / overlapping ranges).

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