openwisp_update_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. 'Replace' conveys that omitted fields are overwritten (a meaningful trait vs. patch), but the description says nothing about auth/permissions, whether the operation is reversible, what a replacement request body looks like, or what the response returns.

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?

A single efficient line with the action front-loaded before the endpoint detail. It wastes no words, though its extreme brevity is part of why behavioral and usage gaps remain.

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 full-replacement PUT tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. Notably the schema exposes only 'id' with no body fields, so the description should clarify how replacement content is supplied; without that, an agent has no picture of how the call is actually completed.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'VPN UUID or ID'. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a high-coverage, single-parameter schema.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('VPN'), and the HTTP PUT marker signals full-replacement semantics that distinguish it from sibling openwisp_patch_vpn. The category prefix also situates it. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the verb is concrete enough for selection.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives like openwisp_patch_vpn (partial update) or openwisp_delete_vpn plus openwisp_create_vpn (delete-then-recreate). The PUT semantics imply full replacement, but the agent is left to infer when this is preferable.

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