Revoke network VPN peer

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: tunnel access ends only after the next applied configuration, backend enforces ownership/feature availability/2FA locks, an accepted operation is pending not proof of connectivity, and it details polling semantics (in_progress flag, next_check_seconds, reason_kind waiting vs failure). It also covers idempotency-key preservation and a no-auto-retry rule, all of which annotations alone do not 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?

The purpose and permission constraints are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The remainder is dense but each clause carries operational meaning (polling contract, reason_code handling, retry policy), so there is little pure filler despite the length.

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?

For a destructive, async mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: permission model, ownership/2FA gates, pending-vs-success distinction, the polling loop contract, and recovery behavior on transport uncertainty. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 75% so the schema documents peer_id/gateway_id/idempotencyKey reasonably well, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the generation-based concurrency ('using the VPN GATEWAY generation' / 'ends after the next applied configuration') and how to reuse the idempotency key on uncertain recovery, which the schema only alludes to.

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 (revoke) and resource (VPN peer) with precise scope: 'Revoke one device using the VPN GATEWAY generation.' It clearly distinguishes itself from create_network_vpn_peer, delete_network_vpn_gateway and detach_network_vpn_gateway by describing the single-peer revocation semantics.

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 context and prerequisites: explicit networking:read/networking:manage permission requirements, 'Read current capabilities and owned resource state first; obtain approval for the exact change.' It tells the agent when to use it and what to do before calling, but does not name alternative sibling tools for related operations.

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