featured_fields_replace_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns about the destructive nature ('Running this API will delete all existing host names') and specifies the required license. It lacks details on response format or other side effects, but covers the most critical behavioral trait.

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 well-structured: title, purpose, warning, license, endpoint, and example. Each sentence adds value, and the example is useful. It is slightly long but not verbose, earning a 4.

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?

The description covers purpose, destructive behavior, and an example. However, it lacks any mention of the response/return value, sync/async execution, or error scenarios. With no output schema, the description should explain what happens after the call, which is a notable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example request body showing the 'fields' array with 'value' and 'comment' objects, which clarifies the structure. It does not fully explain each parameter beyond what the schema already states, but the example adds practical meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Replace Featured Hosts' and 'Replace the featured hosts listed in your environment.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the resource type (hosts) distinguishes it from sibling tools like featured_fields_replace_ip_addresses or featured_fields_replace_users.

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?

Provides clear context that this replaces the entire set of featured hosts, with a critical note that it deletes all existing host names. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use this operation, which would elevate it to a 5.

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