Create a network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Private' and 'Free' are the only behavioral disclosures; there is no information about authentication requirements, whether the network is immediately usable, how optional subnets behave, or what happens if the name collides. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. Both sentences carry content ('private' narrows scope, 'Free' is a real cost disclosure), though the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a mutation/creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, yet the description explains almost nothing an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing covers whether subnets can be added later, whether the network is immediately usable, or what the response contains.

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 75%, below the high-coverage threshold, and one parameter (expose_routes_to_vswitch) has no description at all. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever - no syntax for ip_range, no explanation of subnet structure or the expose_routes flag - so 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?

The description states a verb and resource ('Create a private network'), so the basic action is identifiable, but it essentially restates the title 'Create a network' with the word 'private' added. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like cloud_create_server, cloud_create_firewall, or cloud_create_volume beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cloud_create_server's networking options, nor any prerequisites. 'Free' hints at a cost consideration but is not framed as usage guidance. The agent gets no explicit when/when-not context.

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