Update Cluster

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (idempotent, destructive). The description adds behavioral detail: PATCH semantics (only provided fields change) and return format options (markdown default or JSON). This adds value beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior or consequences of invalid inputs, which would be beneficial for complete 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 (three sentences) with front-loaded purpose and clear structure: statement of action, usage rule, and return format. It is efficient and avoids verbosity. A minor improvement could be using bullet points for readability, but it remains effective.

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 (13 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to populate parameters like 'type', 'group', 'status', nor how to interpret the response structure beyond format. Missing guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need a valid cluster ID) and related tools (e.g., netbox_get_cluster to retrieve current state). The return format description is helpful but insufficient for complete 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 description coverage is low (31%). The description only binds the 'id' parameter and implies other fields are optional. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of parameters like 'type', 'group', 'status', 'tenant', etc. No additional semantic information is provided for the majority of parameters, which is insufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool updates an existing cluster in NetBox using PATCH semantics. It explicitly mentions the resource (cluster) and the action (update), and distinguishes from creation by specifying 'existing' and PATCH behavior. 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 instructs to supply the numeric 'id' and only fields to change, and that omitting fields leaves them unchanged. This is clear guidance for usage. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' (e.g., create vs. update) and prerequisites like needing the cluster to exist, though these are implied by the operation.

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