vpc_create_vpc2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions defaults for ip_type, ip_block, and prefix_length, and notes the return value, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or any constraints on the create operation. This is thin for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by a compact args list with per-parameter explanations, and a returns line. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity, making it easy to scan.

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 presence of an output schema (signal indicates it exists) and the tool's simple create nature, the description covers all parameters and the return value. However, it lacks context on constraints like region availability, limits, or interactions with existing VPCs, which would be useful but not critical for a basic create operation.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter with examples (region codes, IP block), defaults (ip_type='v4', prefix_length=24), and clarifies meaning (description as label). This is excellent given the barren schema.

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 ('Create a new VPC 2.0 network') with a specific verb and resource. It also lists expected parameters, making it distinct from sibling tools like vpc_create (presumably VPC 1.0) and vpc_update_vpc2.

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 its siblings (e.g., vpc_create) or under what conditions it is appropriate. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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