vyos_configure_batch

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining atomic commit behavior and the confirm_time parameter's rollback mechanism. No contradiction with annotations, but it doesn't cover failure behavior or full side effects.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by usage, Args/Returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it concise yet comprehensive.

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's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers core behavior, parameters, and examples. It lacks edge-case handling but is sufficient for an agent to use 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 input schema already provides descriptions for parameters (operations, confirm_time, ConfigOp), so baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples that illustrate parameter usage and structure, improving clarity.

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 it applies multiple configuration operations in a single atomic commit, with specific use cases (VXLAN, firewall rules) that differentiate it from single-operation siblings like vyos_set or vyos_delete.

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 explicitly says to use it for changes that must be applied together and provides examples, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast with alternatives beyond implication.

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