liara_attach_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Attach' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens if the network is already attached, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 perfectly concise - a single, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after attachment, whether there are side effects, what the expected outcome looks like, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of network attachment operations, this leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 ('Attach') and resource ('a network to a VM'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'liara_detach_network' or other network/Vm-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'liara_create_network' or 'liara_detach_network'. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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