liara_create_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new network' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, potential costs, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., if a network with the same name exists). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise with 'Create a new network'—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by being clear and to the point, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 of a network creation tool (likely involving infrastructure changes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error handling. For a mutation tool in a list with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'name' and 'cidr' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining naming conventions, CIDR format examples, or default behaviors. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Create a new network' clearly states the action (create) and resource (network), but it's vague about what a 'network' entails in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like liara_attach_network or liara_detach_network, which also involve networks. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the network's role or scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like liara_attach_network and liara_detach_network, the description doesn't clarify if this is for initial setup, isolated networks, or specific use cases. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for network creation.

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