vpc_create_vpn_gateway

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

The description merely restates the tool's name without disclosing any behavioral traits such as mutability, dependencies, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to inform the agent about what happens when a VPN gateway is created.

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 only four words, which is too brief for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. While concise, it under-specifies the tool, sacrificing essential information. A description this short cannot earn higher than a 2.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and sibling differentiation, the description is severely incomplete. The agent needs to know dependencies (e.g., required VPC or subnet), return values, and how this tool fits into the broader VPC ecosystem. The current text provides none of this context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the difference between 'route' and 'policy' modes, the format of subnet_id, or the role of region. The agent must infer or guess these 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 states 'Create a VPN gateway' which clearly indicates the action and resource. Among sibling tools, there are other gateway creation tools (e.g., tg_create_gateway, dl_create_gateway, vpc_create_public_gateway), but the VPN prefix distinguishes it. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vpc_create_public_gateway or tg_create_gateway. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., existing VPC, subnet) and context for the tool's purpose, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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