update_ipsec_phase1

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, and idempotent operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether unspecified parameters are left unchanged or set to null. This is a critical gap for an update tool with many optional fields.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Update') and the object ('IPsec Phase 1 (IKE) entry'). Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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 tool's 15 parameters and complex partial-update semantics, the description is far too terse. It does not explain the behavior of null fields, the role of apply_immediately, or the relationship to apply_ipsec_changes. Even with an output schema, these gaps leave the agent uncertain about the tool's side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' merely reiterates the schema's phase1_id description and provides no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb 'update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'IPsec Phase 1 (IKE) entry' with the requirement 'by ID'. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_ipsec_phase1, delete_ipsec_phase1, and update_ipsec_phase2.

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 clearly states it is for an existing entry and requires an ID, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., create for new entries) or the need to call apply_ipsec_changes after updates.

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