panorama_apply_ipsec_candidate

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: PSKs are accepted as-is with no strength check, supplied PSKs transit as redacted secrets, and no commit/push is performed. This goes well beyond the annotation flags and warns about the client-history risk.

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 destructive marker and core action. Each sentence contributes unique information: prerequisites, PSK handling, no-commit scope, and risk. The phrasing is somewhat telegraphic, especially 'Direct PSK client-history risk on apply,' but there is no redundancy or wasted 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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: what is applied, what inputs are required, how PSKs are handled, and what side effects do not occur. It does not describe the return value or post-apply status/follow-up, which is a minor gap given the sibling operation-status tools.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description still adds value by explaining that plan_id and plan_hash must come from a prior plan call and that PSKs are keyed per secret slot with one direct PSK per tunnel. It does not elaborate on the optional firewall parameter, but the schema already documents that adequately.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Applies an approved IPsec plan to the candidate configuration.' Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by scope ('candidate configuration only') and by the explicit 'no commit or push' boundary, so it is not confused with commit/push or BGP apply tools.

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?

Describes prerequisites clearly: an approved plan, plan_id, plan_hash, and operator-supplied PSKs. It also clarifies the tool does not commit or push, which tells the agent that further steps would be required for persistence. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is strong enough.

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