update_vpn_server

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 does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether unspecified fields are preserved, what permissions are required, or whether active VPN sessions/tunnels are affected. The phrase 'fields to update' hints at partial updates but is not explicit.

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 with the primary purpose. Each parameter is given its own concise line, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 update operation with a free-form nested fields object and no annotations needs more detail to be called correctly. The description lacks information about valid field names, whether the update is partial or full, how to obtain the server_id, and what side effects may occur. The presence of an output schema reduces but does not eliminate this gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: host can be a console name, ID, or composite ID; site can be a name or ID; server_id is the VPN server ID; and fields examples are provided. However, the exact accepted field names and value constraints for the fields object remain vague and under-specified.

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 and resource: 'Update a VPN server configuration by ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vpn_server, get_vpn_server, delete_vpn_server, and list_vpn_servers.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_vpn_server or get_vpn_server. The update verb implies modification of an existing server, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria are stated.

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