Update Aggregate

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

The description discloses PATCH semantics and the return format (markdown or JSON). Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive behavior, and the description adds value by explaining the partial update behavior and output options, with no contradictions.

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 with three clear sentences. It front-loads the key purpose and semantics, and every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the update operation and output format but lacks context on how to obtain the 'id' (e.g., via get/list) and does not explain the broader context of aggregates in NetBox. For a moderately complex tool (10 params), it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the meaning of many parameters like 'rir', 'prefix', 'tenant', etc. It only emphasizes the PATCH usage pattern. For a tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 'Update an existing aggregate in NetBox' and specifies 'PATCH semantics', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_aggregate and netbox_delete_aggregate.

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 explains that only the 'id' is required and that omitting fields leaves them unchanged. This provides clear usage context, though it could explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for creation or deletion).

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