set_vm_network

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

Without annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it explains that passing None for mac_address or mode keeps the current value, and that the VM must be stopped. This goes beyond the schema (which only defines nullability). It could be improved by noting whether changes take effect immediately or after restart, but it covers key behaviors.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by three inline parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essentials: purpose, precondition, and parameter behaviors. It lacks error handling details or confirmation of what the function returns, but for a simple update tool, it is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name as 'VM name (must be stopped)', mac_address with an example and clarification of None behavior, and mode with valid values and None behavior. This is comprehensive and adds critical meaning.

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 clearly states the action: 'Update network configuration of a stopped VM.' It specifies the resource (network configuration) and a precondition (VM must be stopped). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_vm_display or set_vm_resources.

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 provides a clear precondition: VM must be stopped. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give examples of when not to use it. Given the context, the prerequisite is useful but lacks comparative guidance.

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