update_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, whether id is required, what happens if the network does not exist, or any side effects. It adds almost no behavioral insight.

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 concise but under-specified. It is a single sentence that barely goes beyond the tool name, offering no useful structure or detail for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 complexity (9 parameters, mutation, no annotations, no output schema), this description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover field meanings, update behavior, return values, or when to use the tool, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not interpret any of the 9 parameters. An agent cannot infer the meaning of fields like network_type, vlan_id, or company_id from the schema or description, so parameter semantics are completely absent.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Update an existing network.' This distinguishes it from create/delete/get operations on the same resource. However, it lacks detail on what specific aspects of the network can be updated, so it does not fully differentiate from other update_* tools beyond the resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_network or delete_network, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The one-sentence description provides no contextual usage information.

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