sros_set_replace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical destructive trait: the entire subtree is replaced and any config not in the new value is removed. It stops short of auth requirements, atomicity, or error/response behavior, but the key risk is surfaced explicitly.

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, with the operation and its scope front-loaded and the destructive warning placed immediately after. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential risk (full-subtree replacement). Minor gaps remain around session prerequisites and failure/response behavior, but an agent can 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the relationship between path and value (entire subtree replaced by a complete value) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (replace config on Nokia SR OS via gNMI Set) and describes the exact semantics of the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sros_set_update and sros_set_delete without opening any schema.

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 warning about removing existing config implies the choice against sros_set_update, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given. The gNMI replace-vs-update distinction is left for the agent to infer from sibling names.

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