Org API — provision VPN client

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

With only the openWorldHint annotation (indicating mutation), the description adds valuable context about the required API key, the X-Api-Key header, and the ownership constraint. This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not explain return values or side effects, which are not covered by 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?

The description is three concise sentences with no filler. Each sentence provides essential information: the route, the required environment variable, and a critical precondition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers the endpoint and authentication, it omits parameter semantics, return value, and how it differs from the non-org vpn_client_create. Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, these gaps make it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (name, node_id, wg_public_key, wg_preshared_key). Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but does not, it fails to add meaning to the parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Provision' and the resource 'VPN client' via the org API key route POST /api/v2/org/vpn/clients. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like vpn_client_create by emphasizing the org-level route and authentication method.

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 provides clear context: it requires EREBRUS_API_KEY and specifies that the node must belong to the key's org, implying this is for org-level provisioning. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over the non-org vpn_client_create or exclude other contexts, stopping short of a 5.

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