hcl_apply_interface_tuning

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions scoped readback, saved recovery, unavailable serial clock and IOS delay mappings, partial encrypted authentication values, and omission of secrets from operation receipts and previews. These limitations and safety notes are substantive and consistent with the destructive annotation.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The second and third sentences efficiently convey important limitations, though some phrases such as 'scoped readback' are slightly cryptic.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with a nested parameter object, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, so the description carries substantial burden. It covers key limitations and secret handling, but it does not provide enough operational detail about prerequisites, recovery behavior, or the full parameter set.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does identify bandwidth, OSPF fields, and limitations around clock rate, delay, and encrypted authentication, but it does not explain most parameters such as router, interface, project_path, topology, dry_run, operation_key, timeout_seconds, or the OSPF interval fields.

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 and resource: 'Tune requested interface bandwidth and OSPF fields'. It is clear what the tool changes, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby apply_* siblings such as hcl_apply_vlan or hcl_apply_acl.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling alternatives are appropriate. The phrase 'requested interface bandwidth' implies a target, but no prerequisites or decision criteria are stated.

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