plan_update_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: preserving required fields from the current host, implying a merge-based, non-destructive update. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a planning-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any preconditions like read permissions.

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 verb and resource. It is concise with no redundant information, every word earning its place.

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 tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description does not explain what a 'plan' entails (e.g., dry-run, no changes applied) or how it relates to apply_change. More context around the purpose of planning and the meaning of 'panel' would improve completeness.

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 schema has 3 required parameters and 0% description coverage. The phrase 'partial host update' hints that the 'patch' parameter contains the fields to modify, but the description does not explain 'panel' or 'host_id', nor does it clarify the structure or constraints of the nested patch object. The description does not compensate for the sparse schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Plan' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'partial host update', distinguishing it from sibling tools like plan_create_host (creation) and plan_update_node (different resource). The phrase 'while preserving required fields from the current host' adds valuable scope.

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 does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions. The qualifier 'partial' implies it is intended for incremental updates rather than full replacement, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'avoid when...' guidance.

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