hcloud_update_network

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

The annotations already flag a destructive, write, open-world operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a concurrent change results in an error response with code `conflict`. It doesn't mention that some fields (labels) fully overwrite existing values, nor what a successful response contains, which matters for a destructiveHint=true 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?

Short and front-loaded, but the first two lines restate the same thing with anchor-link markup noise, giving only one substantive sentence (the conflict note).

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 nested-body mutation tool with no output schema and half-documented parameters, the description omits update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), permission requirements, and return shape. Only the concurrency-conflict behavior is covered.

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 only 50% (the nested `body` object itself is undocumented) and the description adds zero parameter meaning — it never mentions name, labels, or expose_routes_to_vswitch, nor whether omitted fields are preserved. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Update a Network') so the agent knows this mutates an existing network. It doesn't distinguish this from the many closely related network mutation siblings (hcloud_network_add_subnet_action, hcloud_network_change_ip_range_action, etc.), so an agent must infer that this is the general attribute update.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the specialized network action tools or hcloud_get_network. The only conditional content is about the conflict error, not about tool selection.

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