panorama_validate_bgp_candidate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's [READ-ONLY] and 'no commit or push' add little beyond reinforcing the candidate-only scope. It does not disclose response behavior, failure semantics, or validation results, which would add value beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates purpose, side-effect negation, and required inputs compactly. The small redundancy in repeating 'no commit or push' is negligible.

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?

The tool has no output schema and low parameter coverage, yet the description does not state what the validation returns or how success/failure is signalled. It adequately covers why and when to use the tool, but leaves plan_id/plan_hash semantics and response expectations unspecified.

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 only 33%; plan_id and plan_hash have no descriptions beyond type and minLength. The description merely restates that they are required, which the schema already expresses. It does not explain what these identifiers mean or where to obtain them, leaving the agent shortchanged on two of three parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Validates'), resource ('BGP candidate configuration'), and scope ('without committing'). It clearly distinguishes this from the many apply/commit/verify sibling tools, and the 'BGP' qualifier separates it from the parallel IPsec validation 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 makes clear that this tool only validates and never commits or pushes, implying its use for pre-apply validation. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as panorama_apply_bgp_candidate, but the boundary against commit/apply behavior is unambiguous.

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