Update Tenant

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

Explains PATCH semantics (only provided fields change), aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). Adds value by detailing update behavior beyond annotations, though could clarify what 'destructive' entails.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose/semantics, usage instruction, return format. No extraneous text, well front-loaded.

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?

Covers update semantics, required id, and return format (markdown/json). Missing mention of error handling or prerequisite (tenant existence), but overall sufficient for a straightforward update tool with no output schema.

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?

With 44% schema description coverage, the description emphasizes required 'id' and partial update pattern but does not detail each parameter. Schema already provides some descriptions (e.g., tags, custom_fields). Description partially compensates for coverage gap.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing tenant in NetBox' with explicit PATCH semantics. Distinguishes from sibling tools like netbox_create_tenant or netbox_delete_tenant by specifying update-only behavior.

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?

Provides clear instructions: supply numeric id and only fields to change; omitting a field leaves it unchanged. Lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use create instead) but gives sufficient context for correct usage.

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