zones_update_zone

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: 'only the fields you pass are sent', indicating a partial update rather than a full replacement. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether the update is immediate, side effects, permissions required, or error handling. With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key behavioral detail. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient.

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, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain the required entity_id format, the meaning of optional fields like passive or icon, or reference related endpoints (e.g., get_zone for current values). Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks essential usage details that an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description adds the insight that only passed fields are sent, which affects how parameters are interpreted (incremental update). However, it does not explain the meaning of individual parameters like latitude, longitude, radius, passive, etc., leaving the burden entirely on the agent to infer from context. This is insufficient for a 7-param tool.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('a zone'), and the mechanism ('via WS `config/zone/update`'). It specifies that only passed fields are sent, which distinguishes it from related tools like create or delete. This provides a specific verb+resource combination that is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for updating an existing zone (requires entity_id), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_zone for new zones, or delete_zone for removal). No when-not or prerequisites are mentioned. It provides basic context but no strategic guidance.

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