put_vpn_user_login

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only lists error codes (inval, exist, etc.) without explaining their meaning or conditions. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting existing fields), or required permissions. The error list provides some insight but is insufficient for an update tool.

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?

The description is short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, the error code list is unstructured and mixed inline, which reduces readability. The conciseness is acceptable but could be improved by better formatting or summarizing error conditions.

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 tool is an update with 5 parameters and an output schema exists, the description still lacks important context. It does not explain parameter interdependencies (e.g., password_set must be true if password provided), success output behavior, or typical usage scenarios. The error codes are listed but not mapped to parameter conditions.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing all 5 parameters (login__path, login, password, password_set, ip_reservation) with clear types and constraints. The description adds no further semantic context beyond the schema. Since schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Updates the VPNUser task with the given login', which clearly indicates a verb ('Updates') and resource ('VPNUser task'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_vpn_user (create) and get_vpn_user_login (read). However, the term 'VPNUser task' is somewhat ambiguous and could be more specific (e.g., VPN user configuration).

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., post_vpn_user for creation, delete_vpn_user_login for deletion). There is no mention of prerequisites, contextual conditions, or exclusions. The description lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use information.

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