Manage IPSec Peer

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by explaining the idempotency behavior for add operations and the 'already_exists' response, which goes beyond annotations. However, details about other actions (remove, enable, disable) are not disclosed.

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 efficient sentences that convey essential information without waste. The description is front-loaded with actions and then idempotency detail.

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 high parameter count (10) and no output schema, the description is too terse. It lacks action-specific parameter guidance (e.g., which params are needed for add vs remove) and return value details for actions other than add.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Peer name — idempotency key' in schema, and description repeats idempotency).

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 actions (add, remove, enable, disable) and the resource (IPSec peer), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ipsec_peers and manage_ipsec_policy. The mention of idempotency adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other manage_* tools). The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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