hosts_update_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that the operation is a PATCH (mutating), but says nothing about permissions, whether fields are merged or replaced, the partial-update semantics, or the confirm/preview workflow. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 terse lines with the HTTP method front-loaded and no wasted words, so it is structurally clean. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a tool this complex.

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 complex host-update tool with a deeply nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides none of the context an agent needs about merge behavior, the mapper-rewrite mechanism, or the preview-then-confirm flow, leaving it far short of complete.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage and a large nested body (mapper with base64/mihomo/singbox/xrayJson operations, internalSquads, inbound, etc.), the description adds zero meaning about any parameter. It does not explain the required uuid, which fields are optional, or the required confirm flag described only inside 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 states a verb and resource ('Update a host') and discloses the endpoint (PATCH /api/hosts), so the basic purpose is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like hosts_create_host or hosts_delete_host by implication. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no elaboration on what 'update' covers, making it minimum-viable rather than genuinely clarifying.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., host must exist), and no routing to alternatives such as hosts_bulk_nodes_update or hosts_create_host. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.

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