update_openvpn_client

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the basic mutation and safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens with apply_immediately or whether changes require a restart, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 23 parameters, but an output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameters. The description is minimal but sufficient for a straightforward update operation; however, it lacks broader context like the availability of sibling search tools for ID discovery or the role of apply_immediately, so it is not fully complete for a complex operation.

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 23 parameters are already documented with descriptive names and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, leaving the schema to carry the full burden, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update'), the resource ('OpenVPN client instance'), and the identification method ('by ID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_openvpn_client, delete_openvpn_client, and update_openvpn_server by focusing on updating an existing client.

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 for modifying an existing OpenVPN client (as opposed to creating a new one via 'create_openvpn_client'), but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance, mention alternatives, or explain prerequisites such as first calling search_openvpn_clients to obtain a valid client_id.

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