configure_tier0_bgp

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: it sets only specific settings, will not establish peering on its own, returns a config dict or error, and is a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false). No contradictions found.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, usage hint, return statement, and organized Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Complete for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema: covers prerequisites, scope, return behavior, follow-up steps, and aligns with sibling tools. No missing context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args section, including defaults and examples (e.g., local_as_num as string). No gaps remain.

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 configures BGP settings on a Tier-0 gateway's locale-service, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from neighbor creation, clarifying the scope versus sibling BGP-related operations.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use get_tier0_gateway first, notes that neighbor creation is not covered, and recommends checking get_bgp_neighbors afterward. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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