Update infrastructure zone

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required infrastructure_zones:write scope and the fact that boundary replaces the existing geometry, which is the key destructive behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the action, the notable update semantic (geometry replacement), and the authorization requirement. Front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the operation, the one non-obvious mutation semantic, and the auth scope, with annotations supplying safety hints and no output schema to explain. The remaining gap is partial-update semantics: it never says whether omitted optional fields (name, code, kind) are preserved or cleared, which matters for a 7-parameter update tool.

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% and the boundary schema already documents GeoJSON Polygon/MultiPolygon, EPSG:4326, ring closure and MultiPolygon use cases in detail. The description's boundary sentence largely restates the schema, and the other five parameters get no description-level context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update an infrastructure zone by ID'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the create/delete/get/list zone siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from bulk_update or create_infrastructure_zone, but the resource 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?

No when-to-use guidance: nothing about when to prefer this over bulk_update, or when a zone must exist first. 'By ID' weakly implies an existing zone, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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