create_ipsec_phase2

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as whether changes take effect immediately, whether the tool creates a pending configuration, or whether an apply step is required. Given that this is a creation tool with no annotation coverage of such side effects, the description should have provided more context.

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 a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no extraneous words and is highly concise.

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?

Although the schema and annotations are rich, the description is too terse for a 12-parameter creation tool. It lacks context about the IPsec workflow, the dependency on a Phase 1, and the need to potentially apply changes. It does not mention relationship to sibling tools like apply_ipsec_changes, making the overall tool definition incomplete.

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 all 12 parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 is explicit: 'Create an IPsec Phase 2 (Child SA / tunnel) entry'. It clearly states the action (create), the resource (IPsec Phase 2), and clarifies the resource with a parenthetical. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ipsec_phase1 or create_ipsec_phase2_encryption.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_ipsec_phase2 or delete_ipsec_phase2. It also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the need for an existing Phase 1) or any follow-up actions such as apply_ipsec_changes, which are important in an IPsec workflow.

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