Update Cable

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

The description aligns with annotations: PATCH semantics match idempotentHint=true, and 'update' matches destructiveHint=true (modification). It adds transparency by describing the return format options (Markdown vs JSON) and the default. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 highly concise: three short sentences that front-load the purpose and key usage pattern. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested terminations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the a_terminations/b_terminations structure, the relationship between length and length_unit, or provide examples of valid values for key fields. The agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional context.

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 low (27%), yet the description only minimally compensates by mentioning 'only the fields you want to change' and explicitly naming 'id' and 'response_format'. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of other parameters (e.g., type, color, status, a_terminations), nor does it describe the nested structure of terminations. Most parameter semantics must be inferred from the schema alone.

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 action ('Update an existing cable'), uses a specific verb ('Update'), and specifies the resource ('cable in NetBox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_cable and netbox_delete_cable by explicitly mentioning 'PATCH semantics' and 'only provided fields are changed'.

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 usage guidance: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' This tells the agent how to perform partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete), nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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