Apply SDN changes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context that the tool rebuilds config and reloads daemons, and reinforces the high-risk nature, providing value beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction.

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 with no wasted words. The action and risk warning are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers purpose, risk, and basic mechanism. For a mutation tool with no output schema and one parameter, it is mostly complete. Could mention reversibility or failure modes, but the destructive hint covers the risk aspect.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with one parameter (confirm). The description indirectly refers to the need for user confirmation but does not explicitly describe the parameter's semantics. Given high schema coverage, 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 the tool pushes pending SDN changes to the cluster, with specific actions (rebuilds config and reloads daemons). The verb 'Push' and resource 'pending SDN changes' provide a specific purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sdn_* or delete_sdn_*.

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?

The description explicitly advises 'HIGH RISK — ask the user to confirm before invoking,' providing a clear usage directive. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, the risk warning implies appropriate conditions for use.

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