update_trust_zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior such as batch support and that "When provided, individual parameters are ignored." However, it does not mention failure modes, error handling, permission requirements, or side effects on related entities. The return type is only vaguely described as "A confirmation message".

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and structured into Args and Returns sections. However, there is redundancy: the first sentence says 'Update an existing trust zone' and the next paragraph repeats 'This tool updates one or more existing trust zones'. It could be tightened to eliminate the repetition.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters and batch support. The description explains both operating modes, parameter semantics, and (with an output schema present) the return type. It lacks details on validation or error conditions, but for an update tool, the provided information is largely sufficient.

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% for all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that 'id' is required only in single-item mode and that 'items'' takes precedence over individual parameters. The inclusion of 'ctx' in the Args list, though absent from the schema, might confuse but does not detract from the overall clarity.

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 action: "Update an existing trust zone" and explicitly mentions batch support, which distinguishes it from other update tools for different entities (e.g., update_component, update_connection). It names the specific resource (trust zone) and the operation (update).

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 explicit usage modes: "For single item: provide id and fields to update directly. For batch: provide a list of trust zone dicts in the 'items' parameter." It implies this tool is for updating existing zones (not creating or deleting), but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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