hcl_apply_stp

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds scoped context about per-VLAN STP and unsupported equivalence claims, but it does not explain what configuration is changed, whether dry_run is recommended, or what operational risk exists.

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 main action stated first. The second sentence is a useful caveat, though it is somewhat abstract and does not compensate for the missing parameter guidance.

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, nested-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. The description identifies the STP domain but is far too thin to fully prepare an agent for required inputs, dry-run behavior, or side effects.

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 carry parameter meaning. It alludes to priority and edge/guard intent, but does not explain required fields like topology, project_path, switch, mode, operation_key, dry_run, or timeout_seconds, leaving most nested parameters undocumented.

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 and resource: applying per-VLAN rapid spanning-tree priority and edge/guard intent. It is clearly a configuration-apply tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other hcl_apply_* siblings such as ACL, VLAN, or port-security 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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives like hcl_validate_plan or hcl_generate_configs. The caveat about not being full IOS equivalence is a limitation, not usage guidance.

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