hcloud_get_network_action

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

The annotations already declare that the tool is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation; the description adds the genuinely useful fact that the endpoint is deprecated and points to a changelog. It does not explain what happens when the action is still running or how the 'wait' polling behaves, so the behavioral picture is incomplete beyond the deprecation note.

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 three short lines with the purpose at the top and the deprecation caveat directly after it, so it is front-loaded and wastes little space. A raw changelog URL and markdown anchors add slight noise, but they do not obstruct 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should signal what is returned, and it does so by naming an Action resource and linking to the actions tag. For a simple two-ID lookup with full schema coverage, the only material gap is the missing pointer to a replacement endpoint for the deprecated call.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters (id, action_id, wait), so it does all the work. The description only restates that the Action belongs to a Network and adds no detail on the polling parameter or ID semantics; the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get an Action for a Network' / 'Returns a specific Action for a Network'), and the network scope separates it from the generic hcloud_get_action. It still does not explicitly name the sibling to use instead, but the resource scope is 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 deprecation notice implies that an agent should avoid this endpoint and points to a changelog, which is an implicit usage signal. However, it never states the preferred alternative (e.g., hcloud_get_action or hcloud_get_networks_actions_id), nor does it give any condition for still calling this tool.

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