Disable VPN auto renew

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive hints, but the description goes well beyond: the current paid period is preserved, explicit networking:read/networking:manage scopes are required and defaults do not grant them, backend enforces ownership/feature/2FA locks, the accepted call is asynchronous and pending rather than proof of connectivity, polling semantics via in_progress/reason_code/reason_kind/next_check_seconds, and a strict no-auto-retry rule. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and effect are front-loaded, then permissions, then async polling semantics. Every sentence carries operational weight, though the polling/reason_code block is dense and reads as reusable boilerplate rather than tool-specific guidance.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation operation, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains auth scopes, error-vs-pending semantics, polling cadence, reason_code preservation, and retry safety. An agent needs nothing more to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and gateway_id already documents the exact lowercase UUID format returned by an owned resource. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (disable) and resource (VPN automatic renewal) and immediately clarifies the consequence — 'the current paid period remains'. It distinguishes itself from the near-named siblings (disable_network_product_auto_renew, disable_public_address_auto_renew) by scoping to the VPN resource.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: 'Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change' and 'API keys cannot enable it'. It does not name a sibling alternative to use instead, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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