Provision VPN client

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description adds some behavioral context by specifying authorization requirements. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond provisioning (e.g., idempotency behavior, whether existing configurations are overwritten) or mention the optional idempotency_key param, which could affect behavior.

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 two sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists requirements and membership constraints. Every sentence adds useful 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?

Given there is no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params), the description covers the basic action and requirements but omits optional params, return value expectations, or how to subsequently retrieve the client config (e.g., via vpn_client_get_config). The description is adequate but not fully complete for a provisioning tool.

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 description coverage is 60%, so the description carries moderate responsibility. It reiterates the three required parameters (name, node_id, wg_public_key) but adds little beyond the schema. The optional parameters (idempotency_key, wg_preshared_key) remain undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing semantics.

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 action ('Provision a VPN client'), the target ('on a node'), and lists the required inputs. This differentiates it from sibling tools like org_vpn_client_create, which likely operates at the organization level, by emphasizing node-level provisioning.

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 context about membership prerequisites ('User needs org membership (public nodes) or node org membership (private)') but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool vs. alternatives like org_vpn_client_create or vpn_client_delete. No direct 'use this when...' guidance is given.

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