panorama_validate_ipsec_candidate_v2

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful details: it operates on candidate configuration only, performs no commit or push, and validates the exact plan-captured resources rather than arbitrary spec keys. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: it states the core validation action first, then adds the scope and safety qualifiers, then routes around the legacy alternative. Every sentence carries meaningful information and nothing is redundant.

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 read-only validation tool with 3 documented parameters and no output schema, this description covers the key decision factors: what is validated, how resources are identified, the candidate-only scope, and the absence of commit/push. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about what the validation result looks like, but the schema and annotations do most of the required work.

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%, so the schema itself documents plan_id, plan_hash, and firewall. The description reinforces that plan_id and plan_hash are the identifying parameters, which is useful, but it does not explain the optional firewall parameter's role or when it becomes required. This is not a deficit in the description, but it adds little beyond the schema.

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's action: it validates the exact IPsec resources captured by a prior plan and runs a full Panorama candidate validation. It also distinguishes itself from the legacy spec-keyed validation tool and, given the sibling list, from runtime verification tools like panorama_verify_ipsec_runtime.

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?

This description gives clear usage context: use it when you have a prior plan and want to validate that exact IPsec resource set before any commit or push. It also implicitly contrasts with the legacy spec-keyed validation tool. It does not explicitly state when to prefer the legacy tool, but the message is strong enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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