configure_tier0_bgp

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description begins with '[WRITE]' to reinforce the mutation nature. It adds valuable context about what is configured (settings vs neighbors) and lists parameters with defaults, providing behavioral transparency beyond annotations. No contradictions with 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?

Description is front-loaded with the key action and scope. The Args section is well-structured with bullet points. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds value (e.g., clarifying the exclusion of neighbors). Could be slightly more concise, but does not waste space.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and a critical limitation (no neighbor creation). Sibling tools are diverse, and this tool is clearly for BGP configuration on Tier-0. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use and what to expect.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter with purpose, types, and defaults (e.g., local_as_num: 'Local AS number as a string (e.g. "65001")'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, making parameters clear and actionable.

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?

Description starts with '[WRITE] Configure BGP settings on a Tier-0 gateway's locale-service.' Clearly specifies the verb (configure), resource (BGP settings on Tier-0 gateway locale-service), and scope. Explicitly distinguishes from BGP neighbor creation, which is a separate action, helping differentiate from siblings like get_bgp_neighbors or create_static_route.

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?

Description explicitly states that BGP neighbor creation is a separate API object and not exposed here, telling the agent when not to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly list when to use, the context of configuring BGP settings for a Tier-0 gateway and the list of parameters (local AS, ECMP, etc.) imply usage scenarios. It could be improved with more direct usage guidance.

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