hcl_apply_vlan_network

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that targets and backups precede changes, which is genuinely non-obvious sequencing context, but the closing clause about 'persistence and recovery stay bound to each VM' is too vague to act on and dry_run behavior is never explained.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, which is good. The second sentence is cryptic and dilutes rather than adds ('bound to each VM' has no clear operational meaning), so space is spent without earning clarity.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with nested objects, zero schema descriptions and no output schema — the highest-burden case. The description omits failure semantics, whether changes are transactional/rolled back, what backups are taken and where, and how dry_run differs, leaving the agent without what it needs to invoke safely.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden — yet it explains none of the four parameters. The words 'VLAN/access/trunk/router subinterface' loosely map to the vlans/access_ports/trunks/subinterfaces arrays, but dry_run, topology and project_path are entirely unaddressed, and nested objects (Trunk, AccessPort, RoutedVlan) get no guidance.

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?

Names a specific verb (apply) and concrete resources (VLAN/access/trunk/router subinterface) plus the scope (staged devices). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling hcl_apply_vlan, which by name appears to overlap heavily — the agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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?

'Across staged devices' hints that devices must be staged first, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The obvious sibling hcl_apply_vlan (and hcl_apply_acl/hcl_apply_nat) is never mentioned, and the available dry_run path is never recommended as a pre-check.

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