update_device_sslvpn_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only provided fields change, documents allowed values and ranges, and notes the default VDOM, but it does not mention permissions, whether changes take effect immediately, commit requirements, or reversibility.

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 action and partial-update rule, followed by a necessary parameter list for a 14-parameter tool. The only minor waste is the redundant "Returns: Update result" line, since an output schema exists.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the parameters, partial-update semantics, and related objects well enough for correct invocation. It is slightly incomplete on operational preconditions such as whether referenced certificates or portals must already exist and whether a commit/install step is required.

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 fully, and it does: every parameter is documented with meaning, allowed values, ranges, defaults, or related-tool references. This is substantially more informative than the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: updating the SSL-VPN settings object in a device's device DB. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing get_device_sslvpn_settings for current state and update_device_sslvpn_web_portal for the related portal object.

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 clearly explains the partial-update behavior and directs the agent to get_device_sslvpn_settings before updating. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus update_device_sslvpn_web_portal, but the cross-reference for default_portal provides useful routing context.

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