vpn-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully adds critical behavioral context beyond the schema by stating it 'Restarts the proxy,' implying service interruption. However, it lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or whether the switch is atomic/transactional.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the action and target; the second provides essential implementation detail (proxy restart). Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 low complexity (1 param, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It adequately explains the mechanism (restart) which is crucial for a VPN tool. Minor gap: could clarify whether this requires an existing connection or works from cold start.

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% for the single 'node' parameter, establishing a high baseline. The description doesn't add syntax details or format examples (e.g., expected ID format), but with full schema coverage and only one parameter, additional semantic elaboration is unnecessary.

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 provides a specific verb ('Switch'), clear resource ('VPN exit node'), and scope ('different' implies changing from current). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like vpn_connect (initial connection), vpn_activate (enabling), and vpn_status (checking state) by focusing on the transition between nodes.

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 implies usage context through the word 'different' (suggesting an existing connection is required), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus vpn_connect or vpn_activate. No prerequisites, workflow ordering, or conditions are stated.

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