Update address group members (safe)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond these: the tool reads current members before acting and defaults to dry_run=true. This informs the agent of safe usage. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and two key safety behaviors. Every word is necessary; no fluff or repetition. Highly concise.

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 no output schema, the description omits return value details, which could be useful for an agent. However, the tool's behavior is straightforward (applies changes), and the safety features are well-described. This is a minor gap, so not a perfect 5.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description reinforces the dry_run default but doesn't add new semantic meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Safely add, remove, or replace address group members'. It also mentions key safety aspects (reads current members first, defaults to dry_run=true). This distinguishes it from siblings like fortigate_update_address which modify different resources.

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 by stating what the tool does and its safety defaults. It doesn't explicitly specify when to use or when not to use alternatives, but the sibling names (fortigate_create_address_group, fortigate_update_address) make the context clear. A more explicit 'Use this instead of X when...' would improve it, but current clarity is high.

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