Change delete protection for a Hetzner Cloud network by setting its protection flag. This prevents accidental deletion; if a change is in progress, the request returns a conflict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the Network. | |
| body | Yes | ||
| wait | No | Poll the resulting action until success/error or timeout. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to establish that this is a mutation. It adds useful behavioral context with the conflict error condition, but it does not explain what protection settings exist beyond the schema, required permissions, or what the wait parameter implies for action polling.
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 short and front-loaded, with the operation stated first and the conflict condition second. The heading repeats the tool name and adds little, but the overall structure is efficient.
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 mutation tool with a nested body and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the conflict case but does not describe the action response, the effect of wait, or clarify that the only protection setting exposed in the schema is delete protection.
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 moderate at 67%, with descriptions already provided for id, body.delete, and wait. The description only broadly refers to protection settings and does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema. It does not compensate for the remaining gap or clarify that the only exposed setting is delete protection.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it changes protection settings of a Network. This distinguishes it from general network updates and from protection tools for other resources. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as hcloud_update_network, but the resource and operation are clear.
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 explains the operation and the conflict response if a change is already in progress, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like hcloud_update_network. There are no prerequisites or exclusions beyond the conflict note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.