modify_computer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one error condition (computer not found), which is useful, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the attributes dict is a partial merge or a full replace, which keys are accepted, or whether the change is auditable/reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage that is a significant gap.

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 first two sentences say essentially the same thing and could be one, but the worked example with a realistic computer_name is genuinely useful and correctly illustrates the nested attributes shape. Net is serviceable rather than tight.

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?

A write tool with a nested free-form attributes object, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to spell out accepted keys and update semantics; it does neither. The error-on-not-found note is the only behavioral detail and is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description does add partial meaning by naming example attribute keys (description, location, management settings). However, the nested attributes object is the risky parameter and its accepted key set is never enumerated, so it barely exceeds the schema's "Dictionary of attributes to modify".

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 verb and resource ("Modify computer attributes and properties") and narrows the scope to computers, which distinguishes it from modify_user and modify_group. It does not, however, clarify how it relates to enable_computer/disable_computer/reset_computer_password, which touch the same object.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description never says to use enable_computer/disable_computer for status changes or reset_computer_password for credentials, so the agent must infer boundaries from sibling names alone.

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