host_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool modifies the name and group, omitting any details about side effects, whether group changes are additive (append) or replacement, permission requirements, or reversibility. The schema hints at append vs. remove via parameter names, but the description itself does not explain these behaviors, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and a key prerequisite. It avoids fluff and front-loads the essential information. However, it is slightly terse, lacking expansion on the group modification semantics, which might be expected for a tool with multiple group-related parameters.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and four parameters, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the append vs. remove behavior of add_groups/remove_groups, whether both can be used together, or any constraints (e.g., cannot remove the last group). The output schema exists but does not cover behavioral context. The prerequisite to query group IDs is mentioned, but broader usage context and operational details are missing, making the description insufficient for confident invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that group parameters are group IDs and that they must be queried first, clarifying that these are references to external entities. This goes beyond the schema's simple '要添加的群组ID' and helps the agent understand the nature of these parameters. It does not detail new_name but that is already clear.

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 ('修改' modify), the resource (主机 host), and the specific attributes modified (可见名称 visible name and 群组 group). It distinguishes the tool from retrieval siblings like host_get or hostgroup_get by focusing on modification. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: '群组参数为groupid（需先查询）' (group parameter is groupid, must query first), implying that the agent should obtain group IDs via a lookup (e.g., hostgroup_get) before calling this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still offers practical guidance.

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