create_site_to_site_tunnel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that this 'is a write operation that modifies live config,' which is a meaningful warning about real-world side effects. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, idempotency, conflict behavior, or reversibility, leaving the profile incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, behavioral warning second, parameter clarifications last. Every sentence contributes value with no filler. The inline parameter documentation at the end is slightly awkward as a run-on but remains appropriately sized for a three-parameter tool.

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 write operation with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, the side-effect warning, and parameter formats. It lacks prerequisites such as the site/host needing to exist, failure or validation behavior, and whether the tunnel payload is a full replacement or partial update. These gaps are notable but not fatal for a create operation.

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 does meaningfully. It explains host as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format),' site as 'site name or ID,' and enumerates tunnel payload fields like remoteIp, psk, networks, and enabled. The 'etc.' signals non-exhaustive listing, so it stops short of fully specifying types and required subfields.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Create a site-to-site VPN tunnel,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_site_to_site_tunnels, update_site_to_site_tunnel, and delete_site_to_site_tunnel. The added 'site-to-site' qualifier also differentiates it from VPN server tools such as create_vpn_server.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_site_to_site_tunnel for modifying an existing tunnel or list_site_to_site_tunnels for inspection. The 'create' verb implies use only for new tunnels, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.

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