update_egress_allowlist_entry

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description corroborates and extends them: it discloses the impact ('potentially changing trusted outbound destinations'), PATCH semantics ('omitted fields stay unchanged'), the clearing behavior for description, and the organisation-permission requirement. It stops short of describing reversibility or how to undo a change.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, then prerequisite, then mutation semantics, then permission/return. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema already defined, everything an agent needs is present: required identifier context is in the schema, and the description covers prerequisites, PATCH semantics, the minimum-change constraint, permission gating, and the nature of the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: omitted fields are left unchanged and at least one field must actually change. The null-clears-description behavior is stated in both places, so it adds no extra value there.

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 and resource (change an organisation egress allowlist domain or description) and immediately names the sibling it depends on (get_egress_allowlist_entry). An agent can distinguish this from create_egress_allowlist_entry, delete_egress_allowlist_entry, and list_egress_allowlist without opening any schema.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Inspect get_egress_allowlist_entry first') and a hard usage constraint ('At least one changed field is required'). It does not spell out when to use a different sibling (e.g. delete or create) instead, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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