create_network

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the change is applied immediately and persisted, that confirm=true is required, and that routing/VLAN/DHCP changes can disrupt connectivity. This is meaningful additional behavioral context.

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?

Well front-loaded with purpose and mutation warning, and the flow from high-level guidance to Args is logical. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the 100%-covered schema, so it is not maximally concise, but it is organized and readable.

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 an 11-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, optionality, enabling conditions, safety gate, and related inspect/delete operations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema descriptions; the only extra value is grouping interdependent params (subnet/VLAN/DHCP) in the prose, which is marginal.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Create a new network/VLAN segment on the gateway' — and adds the default purpose. This clearly distinguishes the operation from update_network/delete_network without needing to open the schema.

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?

States lifecycle alternatives explicitly: 'Inspect with get_networks; reverse with delete_network.' It also gives concrete creation conditions — CIDR subnet, optional VLAN, DHCP requires both dhcp_start and dhcp_stop, and confirm=true is mandatory for this disruptive mutation.

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