updateLanNetwork

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Update' is consistent with modification, so no contradiction. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the schema (e.g., whether unspecified fields are reset, whether this interrupts clients), but with annotations present the description is not deficient enough to score lower.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase distinguishes the operation and its scope.

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 a mutation with 8 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description gives only a terse field summary and no update semantics (full replacement vs partial update) or return-value guidance. The schema carries the structural burden, but the definition is adequate, not 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?

The description names VLAN, gateway/subnet, and DHCP settings, partially echoing schema properties, but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. With schema coverage at 63%, it neither relies fully on the schema nor compensates for undocumented fields like networkId, name, and siteId.

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?

States a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('existing LAN network configuration') and names key fields (VLAN, gateway/subnet, DHCP settings), clearly distinguishing it from createLanNetwork and deleteLanNetwork.

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 word 'existing' implies it applies to networks already present, distinguishing it from createLanNetwork, but no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions are given. Sibling context fills some gaps, yet the description itself leaves selection to inference.

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