Manage IPSec Peer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context for add action idempotency ('returns already_exists'), but does not disclose behavior for remove/enable/disable or address error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. No extraneous information.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It covers basic operations but omits details on return values, error handling, and consequences of destructive actions beyond the idempotency note. Schema descriptions help but description could add more context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining idempotency behavior tied to the name and address parameters (e.g., 'add returns already_exists if a peer with the same name and address exists'), which is not fully captured in individual parameter descriptions.

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 tool adds, removes, enables, or disables an IPSec peer, a specific resource type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ipsec_peers (read-only) and other manage_* tools by naming the resource explicitly.

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?

The description implies usage for managing IPSec peers but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives like list_ipsec_peers for listing or other manage_* tools for different resources.

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