update_site_to_site_tunnel

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully indicates that 'tunnel' contains fields to update and lists examples like remoteIp, psk, networks, and enabled, suggesting partial-update semantics. However, it does not explicitly state whether the update is partial or full replacement, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or failure behavior.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by per-parameter notes. There is no filler or redundant information, and the most important scoping details are front-loaded.

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 output schema covers return-value expectations, and the description gives useful identifier formats and editable fields. However, with no annotations and no explicit update semantics, prerequisites, or guidance on discovering tunnel IDs, the operational context is only partially complete for an update tool.

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 explains all four parameters, with particularly useful detail for host ('console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)'), site ('site name or ID'), and tunnel ('fields to update...'). It falls slightly short of a 5 because the full structure of the tunnel object is not specified beyond a few examples.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update a site-to-site VPN tunnel by ID.' This precisely identifies the operation and target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_site_to_site_tunnel, delete_site_to_site_tunnel, and list_site_to_site_tunnels, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention that list_site_to_site_tunnels should be used to find a tunnel_id, or that create_site_to_site_tunnel is for new tunnels. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Update.'

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