stellar_network_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating tool, yet it discloses nothing: whether the config is persisted to disk, what happens on a duplicate name, whether credentials in rpcHeaders are stored, or what the result looks like. "Add" alone implies a write but gives no safety or side-effect context.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. However, for a 5-parameter mutating tool, this brevity reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, a required triple, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only place to convey side effects and success/failure behavior. One bare sentence leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently beyond the schema.

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%, so every parameter including the nested rpcHeaders object is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra semantics (format hints, defaults for configDir, header examples), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 has a clear verb ("Add") and resource ("network configuration"), which is enough to separate it from stellar_network_remove, stellar_network_list, and stellar_network_use. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 versus stellar_network_use or stellar_network_settings, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that name/rpcUrl/networkPassphrase are mandatory), and no note on whether the new network becomes the active one. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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