Switch HTB VPN Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the change affects the user's whole HTB connection and should be surfaced to the user beforehand. It still omits what happens on failure or whether an active session is dropped.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then input formats, then the impact warning. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete: it explains accepted inputs and the blast radius of the change. Only the outcome of the call (success/failure, reconnection behavior) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the single parameter by enumerating the three accepted input forms (numeric id, static alias, live name) with concrete examples and naming htb_vpn_servers as the authoritative source for live names, which the schema description only gestures at.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Switch the account to a different VPN server') and clearly separates itself from the sibling htb_vpn_servers/htb_vpn_status tools by naming the server-listing tool as a source of valid values.

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?

Gives clear operating context ('mention it before switching') and points to htb_vpn_servers as the place to obtain live names, so the agent knows how to source input. It does not state when-not to use this tool or name explicit alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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