update_device_ipsec_phase1_interface

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It usefully states that only provided fields change and that echoed credentials are stripped from the result. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether a commit or lock is needed, error behavior when the object is missing, or the impact of changing sensitive fields such as psksecret.

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 purpose and then uses a structured Args list appropriate for 16 undocumented parameters. Most lines earn their place by documenting a field; the Returns line overlaps the output schema but adds the useful credential-stripping detail.

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 the required device/name parameters and most optional fields, and the output schema handles return structure. However, for a complex mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it omits important invocation context such as when to use it versus siblings and allowed values for several string parameters.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it names all 16 parameters and gives meanings, including allowed values for type, ike_version, and mode, plus the 6-128 character constraint for psksecret. Some gaps remain for peertype, dpd, nattraversal, proposal, and dhgrp, whose accepted values or formats are not specified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update fields on a device-DB IPsec phase1-interface. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/get/list/delete tools for the same resource. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The phrase 'Only provided fields change' clarifies partial-update semantics, which is useful. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus create/get/delete, nor does it state prerequisites such as ensuring the gateway exists or any required ADOM/device lock context.

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