update_sdn_vnet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the update is additive or replaces properties, if it requires existing VNet, or if changes are immediately applied. The simple 'Update' verb is vague.

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 very concise: a single sentence 'Update an SDN VNet.' followed by a clean parameter list. No extraneous words, front-loaded with purpose, and each line is necessary.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what an SDN VNet is, what properties can be updated, or the effect of the operation. It is too brief to be fully contextual for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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?

The description explicitly lists parameters with brief semantics: 'vnet: VNet ID', 'tag: VLAN tag (-1 = don't change)', 'delete: Comma-separated properties to delete'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/title, compensating for 0% schema coverage, though explanations are minimal.

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 'Update an SDN VNet' clearly states the action and resource, but it essentially repeats the tool name without adding deeper context about what exactly updating entails. It distinguishes from create/delete siblings by using 'update', but lacks specificity about scope or effects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_sdn_vnet or delete_sdn_vnet. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where updating is appropriate.

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