push_configApplies configuration commands to a Huawei eNSP device one by one, stopping on the first failure and reporting commands left unexecuted. Applied commands are not rolled back.
Push configuration commands sequentially; stop on the first failure and report unexecuted commands. Applied commands are not rolled back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commands | Yes | Configuration commands | |
| device_ip | Yes | Device name or IP |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses sequential execution, fail-fast with reporting of unexecuted commands, and critically that applied commands are NOT rolled back. That non-atomic, partial-failure semantics is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs. It stops short of covering authorization requirements or connection prerequisites.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the fail-fast behavior is front-loaded immediately after the verb, and the no-rollback caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical execution semantics an agent must know before invoking it. It omits device access prerequisites and how results are surfaced, but those gaps are modest.
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 both parameters (device_ip, commands) are documented in the schema with validation constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or meaning beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Push configuration commands') with execution semantics, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as execute_cli, mcp_push_config, or multi_device_push_config, leaving the agent to infer scope from the 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite three closely related siblings (execute_cli, mcp_push_config, multi_device_push_config). The only contextual cue is the single device_ip parameter, which the agent must interpret on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.