push_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool stores config text, enables boot injection, requires a restart, does not inject into a running node, and additionally flips the PNETLab config flag. The mention of the configs/edit quirk is a valuable behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then each sentence adds essential details: storage, boot behavior, device formats, alternatives, and a known quirk. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, formats, side effects, and alternatives. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. Overall, it fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by elaborating on the 'config' parameter with format examples (VPCS 'ip 192.168.1.1 24', IOS/IOL running-config style). 'node_id' is not detailed but its purpose is implicit from 'to a node' and the schema name.

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's purpose: 'Push a startup configuration to a node (applied on next boot).' It uses a specific verb ('push') and resource ('startup configuration to a node'), and distinguishes itself from run_command by noting the config is injected during boot, not into a running node.

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?

It explicitly provides device-specific usage guidance (VPCS commands, IOS/IOL running-config style) and names an alternative: 'For interactive CLIs (e.g. RouterOS) prefer run_command.' It also clarifies that the node must be restarted for the config to take effect.

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