vyos_configure

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the atomic commit-confirm window, automatic rollback after 5 minutes, and the need for confirmation. It explicitly states changes never partially apply, providing clear behavioral transparency.

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 thorough but slightly long. However, each sentence adds value: main purpose, atomic behavior, batching advice, and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 single parameter, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers usage, behavior, and parameter format well. It does not discuss error handling or return values, but the tool context (atomic config) makes this acceptable.

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 parameter 'commands' is explained in detail with structure (op, path) and a concrete example. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates fully, adding meaning beyond the vague schema definition.

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 'Apply a list of VyOS config changes atomically with commit-confirm.' It specifies the specific verb (apply) and resource (VyOS config changes) and distinguishes from siblings like vyos_confirm and vyos_load by highlighting atomic batch behavior.

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 advises batching related changes for atomicity and speed, contrasting with sequential calls. It also mentions the need for vyos_confirm to persist changes, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for single changes where confirm is unnecessary).

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