hcloud_network_change_ip_range_action

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, but the description adds the concrete blast radius: ranges cannot shrink, IPs can only be appended, and connected servers must be rebooted or have routes updated manually. It also discloses the `conflict` failure mode, which is exactly the kind of post-call consequence an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Front-loads the purpose and the restriction bullets before the long worked example, so an agent can stop reading early if it only needs the rules. The trailing example paragraph and repeated markdown anchor links add some bulk, but every section carries real information.

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 destructive, open-world action with no output schema, the description covers constraints, side effects on dependent servers, and the conflict-error case. Combined with the schema's ip_range guidance and the `wait` polling parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 67%, and the description adds non-obvious semantics for `ip_range`: the new range must start with the same base IP and only the netmask may decrease, with worked examples (10.0.0.0/16 -> /15, /14). The `id` and `wait` parameters are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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: 'Change IP range of a Network', and the restrictions make clear it is an in-place extension of an existing network's CIDR, not a general network update (hcloud_update_network) or subnet/route additions. It never names a sibling tool to disambiguate explicitly, so it stops just short of 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?

Gives clear preconditions for calling: the range can only be extended, only the netmask may change, and a `conflict` error is returned if another change is in flight. It does not say when to prefer it over related tools such as hcloud_create_network or hcloud_network_add_subnet_action, but the constraints effectively define the valid usage envelope.

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