hmc_create_virtual_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter semantics (tagged) but does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, asynchronous job behavior, authority requirements, or error cases. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by targeted parameter clarifications. Every sentence adds value, referencing helper tools and explaining the tagged behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical operational context. It doesn't explain name and vlan_id semantics, nor does it describe return value behavior, success/failure conditions, or whether the operation is asynchronous. With no annotations and four required parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides useful meaning for system_name_or_uuid, vswitch_id, and tagged, but it fails to explain name and vlan_id, which are two of the five parameters. This partial coverage is better than nothing but not complete.

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 'Create a Virtual Network (VLAN) on a managed system,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like hmc_list_virtual_networks and hmc_delete_virtual_network by focusing on the creation action.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating a VLAN) and references helper tools for finding identifiers (hmc_systems, hmc_list_virtual_switches). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as when a VLAN might already exist or when using a bridge vs. switch would be preferable.

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