Update Asn_range

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

The description states PATCH semantics (non-destructive update), but annotations declare destructiveHint: true, which contradicts the intended behavior. This misalignment reduces transparency.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loading the crucial PATCH semantics and usage. Every sentence adds value, though it could include a brief example.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and an annotation contradiction, the description covers core behavior but lacks details on return values, permissions, or side effects. It is minimally adequate.

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 low (36%), and the description does not compensate by explaining the undocumented parameters (end, rir, name, slug, start, tenant, description). It only gives general usage advice.

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 asn_range in NetBox' and specifies PATCH semantics, making the action and resource unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create and delete.

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 clear instructions: supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields to change. It implicitly suggests using this tool when modifying an existing range, though it does not explicitly contrast with create or other alternatives.

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