update_device_ipsec_phase2_interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the partial-update trait and the keylifeseconds valid range (120-172800), but for a mutation tool it omits whether changes take effect on the managed device immediately or only after a package install, whether the object must pre-exist, permission/lock requirements, and whether the update is reversible.

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 key statement is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the per-argument list is proportionate to a 14-parameter tool. Some argument lines restate schema titles with little added meaning (e.g., 'comments: New free-text comment'), a minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so the thin 'Returns: Update result' is acceptable. However, for a 14-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves out the operational context an agent needs (whether a subsequent commit/install is required, existence precondition, valid values for the boolean-like settings).

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 must compensate, and it largely does: every one of the 14 parameters gets a gloss, plus real added semantics such as accepted subnet forms (CIDR or 'address netmask'), the keylifeseconds range, and the vdom default of 'root'. It falls short of 5 because enum-like string parameters (pfs, replay, keepalive, auto_negotiate) only say 'New ... setting' without indicating accepted values such as enable/disable.

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 ('Update fields on a device-DB IPsec phase2-interface') and immediately clarifies the partial-update semantics with 'Only provided fields change.' The verb/resource combination cleanly separates it from the create/get/list/delete phase2-interface siblings in the same family.

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: it is an update of an existing tunnel, and 'Only provided fields change' hints at partial-update usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_device_ipsec_phase2_interface or get_..., no prerequisites (object must exist, ADOM/workspace lock, install needed to push to device), and no exclusions.

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