panelica_domains_patch_v1_domains_id_modsecurity

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Required scopes: domains:write' and explicitly states 'Mutating: changes server state,' which aligns with annotations but adds little beyond what is already inferable. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and well-structured: the action is front-loaded, followed by HTTP method, category, required scopes, and mutation status. Every line earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 mutating endpoint with an opaque request body and no output schema, the description should summarize accepted modsecurity fields or point to specific documentation. It only restates the path and scopes, so an agent still cannot determine what content to send in the 'body' parameter.

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 coverage is nominally 100%, but the body parameter is described only as 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs' with additionalProperties true, leaving the agent without field-level semantics. The description adds no parameter details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not help the agent construct a valid request body.

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 states the action 'Update modsecurity' and identifies the specific endpoint via HTTP PATCH /v1/domains/:id/modsecurity. The resource is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools like GET modsecurity or other domain patch endpoints. It doesn't describe what modsecurity settings can be changed, but the verb+resource is specific enough.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the GET modsecurity endpoint or other domain PATCH endpoints. The description provides prerequisites like required scopes and mutation behavior, but it does not explain selection criteria, exclusions, or when this endpoint is appropriate.

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