panorama_plan_ipsec

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it returns plan metadata (planId, planHash, requiredSecretSlots), performs no commit or push, and requires a prior manual commit/push for runtime verification. There is no contradiction with the 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 four sentences, each earning its place: what the tool plans, what it returns, the critical sibling ordering, and the candidate-only/no-commit behavior. It is front-loaded with the READ-ONLY marker and purpose.

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 complex planning tool with no output schema, the description provides useful return-value context and operational caveats. It could say a bit more about how the returned planId is consumed, but the guidance about BGP ordering and candidate-only behavior is sufficient for an agent to proceed 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 78%, so the input schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds high-level context about what resource categories are planned, but it does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Plans') and a specific resource ('ordered IPsec candidate mutations'), and enumerates the object types covered. It clearly distinguishes the planning role from sibling functions like panorama_plan_bgp, panorama_apply_ipsec_candidate, and the verification 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?

The description gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Run this BEFORE panorama_plan_bgp' and explains why BGP peers need the tunnels to exist first. It also states when it is not the right step: 'Candidate configuration only; no commit or push is performed' and that runtime verification requires a prior manual commit and push.

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