Update Virtual_machine

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive behavior. The description adds value by explicitly stating PATCH semantics and return format options (markdown vs JSON). It does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements, but the annotations cover the core safety profile sufficiently.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the operation and semantics, providing usage instructions, and describing the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 23 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the return format but does not detail error handling, field validation, or the structure of the markdown summary. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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 only 17% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter details. It merely instructs to supply the fields to change without explaining individual parameter semantics. The schema itself has sparse descriptions for most fields, and the description adds no additional meaning.

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 virtual_machine using PATCH semantics. It identifies the resource (virtual_machine) and action (update), and distinguishes from create/delete by context. The description is specific and avoids ambiguity.

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 when to use this tool: to modify an existing VM by supplying the numeric 'id' and only fields to change. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for creating or deleting (e.g., netbox_create_virtual_machine), which could improve guidance. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit alternative linkage.

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