opnsense_if_configure

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that configuration is via SSH, requires environment variables, and supports a no_filter_reload option. However, it does not describe what happens on success (e.g., return value, service restarts) or failure modes. Still, the important behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and supported types, the second states prerequisites. Excellent conciseness.

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 complex parameter set (9 params, 1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential constraints (slot must be assigned, SSH requirements, supported types). Missing outcome description (e.g., returns success/failure, applies changes) but with schema coverage high, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Could mention whether changes are applied immediately or require a subsequent apply.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds a list of supported types (static, dhcp, etc.) which is implicit in the schema parameters' descriptions. No additional parameter relationships or complex semantics beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it configures IPv4/IPv6 on an assigned optN slot via SSH, lists supported types (static, dhcp, dhcp6, track6, none), and distinguishes from siblings like opnsense_if_assign which deals with slot assignment, and opnsense_if_get/list/stats which are read-only.

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?

Explicitly mentions prerequisites (OPNSENSE_SSH_ENABLED=true and script installation). Lists supported address types but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like VLAN tools or when to choose static vs dhcp. Still, the prerequisites and required slot assignment provide clear context.

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