push_config

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

With no annotations, the description discloses crucial behavior: dry_run shows diffs and aborts, dry_run=False commits with a rollback timer, and confirmation must occur before expiration. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity with rollback and confirmation workflow, the description adequately covers the key decision points. The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the rollback/confirm flow is clearly described. Minor gaps remain around config_path and error conditions.

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. It does explain dry_run and commit_timer semantics, and indirectly references hostname and config_lines, but config_path and session_name details are missing. Partial compensation only.

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 configuration to an EOS device via a named configure session, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_config_session, abort_config_session, and get_config_diff.

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 explains when to use dry_run=True vs False and instructs the agent to call confirm_config_session before the timer expires. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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