openwisp_patch_vpn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context by naming the HTTP PATCH semantics (partial update, fields omitted remain unchanged) and the underlying endpoint/path. However, it says nothing about required permissions, which fields are mutable, or error behavior for a mutation tool.

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?

One short sentence plus a bracketed category tag and the raw endpoint; the operative purpose is front-loaded with no filler. The endpoint string is arguably redundant, keeping it just under a 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: the schema exposes only 'id' with no body/field properties, so the agent is never told which VPN attributes can be patched or how they should be supplied. The PATCH semantics are stated, but the tool remains under-specified for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it as 'VPN UUID or ID'. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Partially update a VPN resource') and the term 'Partially' implicitly distinguishes it from full-update sibling openwisp_update_vpn. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the PATCH-vs-PUT distinction is clear enough to select correctly in most cases.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'partially update' suggests using this when changing a subset of fields versus a full replacement, but the description never states when to prefer it over openwisp_update_vpn or what prerequisites exist. An agent can infer intent but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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