Update Vlan

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying PATCH semantics (only provided fields change), behavior when omitting fields, and return format options. Annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) behavior, and the description aligns without contradiction.

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 long, front-loading purpose and semantics before usage and return details. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or filler.

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?

For an update tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return format and update behavior but lacks details on error cases, prerequisites, or individual parameter meanings. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for complex 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?

With only 27% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the majority of undocumented parameters. While it explains the update pattern, it does not detail the meaning or usage of fields like vid, role, site, etc., leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing vlan in NetBox (PATCH semantics)', clearly identifying the action (update) and resource (vlan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like netbox_create_vlan (create) and netbox_get_vlan (read).

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 advises 'Supply the numeric id and only the fields you want to change' and notes that omitting a field leaves it unchanged, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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