contabo_privateNetworks

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is already partly covered; the description adds material context beyond that by disclosing the CONTABO_ENABLE_WRITES=1 runtime gate that causes write operations to be rejected. It also flags which specific operations are destructive. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects such as what happens to attached instances when a network is deleted.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the one-operation rule, then a compact bulleted operation list, then the reference pointer. Structure is easy to scan. The operation bullets largely restate the operation names, which is mild redundancy, though it does help navigate a oneOf-heavy schema.

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 multi-operation dispatcher with no output schema and a heavily branched oneOf input, the description covers operation selection, the write gate, destructive markers, and where to find parameter docs. Return values and list pagination are not described, but parameter semantics are well covered by the schema. Adequate overall, with minor gaps around results and pagination behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description explicitly defers parameter detail to contabo_reference rather than repeating it, which is reasonable but adds no semantic value of its own. The only param-related statement is meta-level ('every operation has its own parameter set (validated per operation)'). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource ('Contabo private networks (VPC)') and enumerates all seven operations with distinct verbs (list, create, update, get, delete, assignInstance, unassignInstance). Sibling tools cover disjoint resources (firewalls, instances, DNS, etc.), so no ambiguity arises. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear operating instructions: 'Choose exactly one operation', notes that each operation has its own validated parameter set, and explicitly tags delete and unassignInstance as [DESTRUCTIVE]. It also routes the agent to contabo_reference for parameter documentation. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over alternatives, but the siblings cover different resources so there is little genuine alternative to disambiguate.

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