update_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Update an existing standard zone.' It does not reveal whether the update is partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, permission requirements, or effects on dependent entities. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the core purpose immediately, which is appropriately concise.

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?

This is a high-complexity mutation tool with 27 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description does not cover update semantics, partial-vs-full replacement behavior, or how to select this tool among numerous zone-related siblings. The schema covers parameter definitions but not the operational context the agent needs.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which already documents all 27 parameters with individual descriptions. No credit loss, but no added value either.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('standard zone'), clearly stating the tool's function. The qualifier 'standard' hints at differentiation from sibling zone tools (vast_update_zone, update_email_zone, update_catalog_zone), though it does not explicitly name them or explain what 'standard' excludes.

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 offers essentially no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools like vast_update_zone or create_zone. The word 'standard' weakly implies a category but does not provide clear decision context.

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