Manage IPSec Policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the composite idempotency key (srcAddress + dstAddress + tunnel) and the range of actions (add/remove/enable/disable), which helps the agent understand safety and repeatability beyond 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, front-loaded with action and resource, then idempotency detail. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 3 required, no output schema), the description is brief. It covers core behavior but omits return values, error handling, or interaction with confirmationToken. For a mutation tool, additional context on expected outputs would improve completeness.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds meaning by highlighting the idempotency key (srcAddress, dstAddress, tunnel) as composite, but does not elaborate on other parameters like routerId or dryRun. This is baseline adequate given schema richness.

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 can add, remove, enable, or disable an IPSec policy, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_ipsec_policies (read-only) and manage_ipsec_peer (different resource) by specifying the exact actions and the idempotency key.

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 policies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_ipsec_peer or other routing tools. No exclusions or context is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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