update_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety metadata is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait beyond them: labels are wholesale replaced rather than merged, which changes how an agent must construct the call. It leaves open whether an empty labels object clears all labels and whether other zone properties are untouched.

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?

A single compact phrase with the action and the key consequence front-loaded; nothing redundant and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 small two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes and how, but omits permission requirements, the effect of an empty map, and whether unrelated zone settings survive. Adequate but with clear gaps for a write operation.

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 50%: 'zone' is documented, but 'labels' is only typed as an object of strings with no description. The description compensates by explaining that this map replaces the existing label set in full, which is precisely the semantic the schema omits. It does not clarify key/value meaning or empty-object behavior.

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 a specific verb and resource ('update a zone's labels') and narrows the scope to labels only, which implicitly separates it from sibling zone mutations like change_zone_ttl and change_zone_protection. It does not explicitly name or exclude an alternative tool, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(replaces all labels)' signals a caution-worthy usage pattern, implying the caller must supply the complete label set. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no alternative tool named for partial label edits.

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