Configure a Cisco Device

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it discloses preprocessing behavior (which lines are skipped, indentation tolerance), that save=true executes 'write memory', and that only rejected commands are returned. The confirmation requirement for a destructive write is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then the sibling routing rule, then the safety warning, then examples. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still briefly characterizes the result ('how many commands were sent and only the ones IOS rejected'), which is strictly additive. For a destructive 3-param tool, the agent has everything needed to decide, call, and warn the user.

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 coverage is 33%, with only 'name' documented inline, so the description carries the load for the two undocumented params and does so well: 'config' semantics (accepts show running-config as-is, skip rules) and 'save' semantics (runs write memory). Minor gap: nothing confirms what 'name' requires beyond the schema's own description, but that parameter is already covered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply a block of IOS configuration to a Cisco device') plus the exact mental model ('like pasting it into the CLI in global config mode'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, send_cli_command, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative and the selecting condition: 'Prefer this over send_cli_command for multi-line configs (VLANs, OSPF, ACLs, interface blocks).' It also states a hard precondition ('Show the user the config and confirm before applying') and provides concrete example intents that map user phrasing to this tool.

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