update_openvpn_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as partial-update semantics (null fields unchanged) or whether apply_immediately controls live application. With annotations covering the core behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not contradict 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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite an output schema and annotations, this is a complex mutation tool with 26 parameters. The description does not explain key behavioral expectations such as optional fields being ignored when null, the role of apply_immediately, or the effect of idempotency. It leaves the agent to infer usage from the schema alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation in non-trivial scenarios.

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 every parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond that. For each optional parameter, the schema gives a terse description, but the description does not clarify that null means 'leave unchanged'—this is an important nuance not covered. Baseline 3 is maintained because structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing OpenVPN server instance by ID' uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('OpenVPN server instance') and a scoping constraint ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_openvpn_server, delete_openvpn_server, and search_openvpn_servers.

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. It does not mention that this is for modifying existing servers (as opposed to creating or deleting), nor does it explain prerequisites like needing to obtain the server_id via search_openvpn_servers. The schema mentions where server_id comes from, but the description itself offers no usage context or exclusions.

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