vyos_confirm_commit

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

Description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the timer and rollback mechanism. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description provides actionable context about what happens if the tool is not called. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: first states action, second explains usage context, third declares return type. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is fully complete. It explains purpose, when to use, and what to expect as output.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly avoids adding parameter info. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 tool confirms a pending commit-confirm timer, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vyos_configure_batch or vyos_set by focusing on the confirmation action.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: when a previous configure or merge operation had confirm_time, and before the timer expires. It explains the consequence of not using it (automatic rollback). While no alternative tools are named, the context is clear.

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