iaas_reconfigure_security_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful eligibility constraint, but says nothing about what a reconfigure actually does to the group's rules, whether traffic is disrupted, or what the call returns — extra context that would matter for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the important eligibility constraint in the second line. The first line ('Reconfigure operation for security group') and the trailing POST path largely restate the title/endpoint annotation, so a little space is spent on redundant information.

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 non-idempotent mutation with a nested body object, no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers eligibility but not effect: what a reconfigure replaces, whether rules are merged or overwritten, or any preconditions. It is adequate to select the tool but thin for invoking it confidently.

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 every nested field (name, tags, rules, projectId, customProperties) is documented inline, so the schema carries the semantics. The description contributes nothing about the body's reconfigure semantics or required vs optional handling beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Reconfigure operation for security group') and narrows the scope to Day-2 reconfigure of security groups provisioned by VMware Aria Automation. The 'not supported for existing security groups' clause meaningfully separates it from siblings like iaas_update_security_group, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

It provides a positive usage context (new groups provisioned by Aria Automation) and an explicit exclusion (existing security groups are not supported), which is the key routing signal. It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should reach for when the group is 'existing'.

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