apply_config

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the return format (dict mapping hostname to success/error). It does not contradict annotations, and it provides a concrete behavioral detail beyond the schema and annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear Args/Returns structure. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall format is efficient and easy to scan.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, the description is complete enough for basic usage. It covers the main command and filter options, though it does not explain how multiple filters combine or mention potential non-deterministic behavior (openWorldHint).

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 100%, and the description's Args section mostly repeats the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic meaning is added beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Send configuration commands to network devices' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from read-only siblings like show_commands and backup_configs. The Args and Returns sections further clarify that this applies configuration changes and returns per-host results.

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 implies usage for applying configuration commands versus alternatives like show_commands, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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