Update Rear_port_template

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description specifies PATCH semantics—only provided fields change. It also explains the output format options (markdown vs JSON), adding value.

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 efficient sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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 no output schema and 10 parameters, the description covers update semantics and output format but lacks parameter descriptions. It is adequate for an experienced user but insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand all parameters.

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 20% (id and response_format have descriptions). The description only mentions the 'id' parameter explicitly and says 'only the fields you want to change', but does not explain the meaning of other 8 parameters like name, type, color, etc., leaving the agent to infer from names/types 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 rear_port_template') and adds PATCH semantics, distinguishing it from creation or retrieval. The resource is explicitly named.

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 notes that omitting leaves unchanged. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives but context (siblings include create/get) makes usage clear.

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