Update Supplier

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

The description discloses PATCH semantics and return format options. Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with update behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the idempotent nature of PATCH and the choice of output format.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a return format note. Important information is front-loaded (verb, resource, semantics). Every sentence adds value 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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: action, usage, and return format. It could mention that the 'id' must correspond to an existing supplier or discuss error handling, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining response_format options and general usage, but does not provide additional semantics for parameters like name, slug, or comments beyond what the schema offers. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description partially compensates for missing schema documentation.

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 supplier in NetBox' with PATCH semantics. The verb 'update' and resource 'supplier' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_supplier, netbox_get_supplier, and netbox_delete_supplier by implying an existing object.

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 how to use the tool: 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.' While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., create vs update), the PATCH semantics and mention of 'existing supplier' implicitly guide the agent.

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