Update Vlan_group

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of PATCH semantics and omitting fields adds context. It also clarifies the return format (markdown or JSON). No contradiction with annotations. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining behavioral nuances.

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 very concise with three sentences. It front-loads the purpose and critical usage guidance (PATCH semantics, id requirement, return format). No extraneous information.

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?

Despite multiple parameters and nested objects (e.g., vid_ranges, custom_fields), the description omits guidance on how to format these or which combinations are valid. For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 low (33%), yet the tool description does not explain most parameters beyond 'id'. It merely says to supply only fields to change. For parameters like 'scope_type', 'vid_ranges', and 'tenant', no additional meaning is provided, leaving the agent to infer from schema 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 verb 'Update', the resource 'vlan_group', and the HTTP method 'PATCH'. It differentiates from create by requiring an existing 'id' and from delete by not indicating removal. Among siblings, create and delete tools exist, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance: supply an 'id' and only fields to change. It does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for creation) but implies it by requiring an existing id. More explicit exclusions would improve, but current guidance is sufficient.

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