update_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool updates fields but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the essential action and fields. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick scanning while covering the core purpose.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions), doesn't fully explain parameters, and provides no output information, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about tool invocation and results.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some value by listing updatable fields ('name, labels'), which maps to two of the three parameters. However, it doesn't explain the 'id' parameter's purpose or provide format details for 'labels' (e.g., key-value pairs), leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a network'), and specifies what can be updated ('name, labels'). It distinguishes from other network-related tools like 'create_network' or 'delete_network' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion.

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. While it's implied for modifying existing networks, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., network must exist), constraints, or comparisons to similar tools like 'update_firewall' or 'update_server' in the sibling list.

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