Update IP Address

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

The description clearly discloses the critical PUT behavior: only supplied fields are sent, and for those fields, the old value is replaced outright. It also summarizes the impact ('Overwrites the supplied fields') and operation class, adding valuable nuance beyond the annotations, which only mark idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a paragraph on the critical PUT nuance, and a short operation-class summary. Every sentence adds value, and the text is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 an update tool with a rich schema and informative annotations, the description covers the most important caveat (partial overwrite) and directs the user to read first when appending. It does not explain how to retrieve the IP address ID, but the schema and sibling tools (hudu_list_ip_addresses) fill that gap, making the description sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the 9 parameters thoroughly explained, including cross-references to sibling tools for lookups. The main description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing ip address.' It also clarifies the record's scope (allocation status, FQDN, network, asset), distinguishing it from sibling update tools for other resources. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance to read the record with hudu_get_ip_address before updating if the intent is to append rather than overwrite, showing awareness of the PUT semantics. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over hudu_create_ip_address, but the verb 'update' and the focus on existing records imply the alternative.

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