update_os_fingerprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation ('Update') but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, error conditions (e.g., if port does not exist), or whether the change is immediate. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant or irrelevant information is included.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, or preconditions (e.g., port must exist and be owned by user). The sibling tools like 'get_port' could supplement, but the description does not reference them.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds context by explaining that the fingerprint is used to 'spoof the operating system', which clarifies the intent of the osFingerprint parameter beyond the enum list. It does not elaborate on the format (e.g., 'os:version'), but the enum values are self-descriptive.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'OS fingerprint (p0f) for a port', specifying the action 'to spoof the operating system'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_port_credentials' or 'reconfigure_port' by focusing on the OS fingerprint.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes 'get_os_fingerprint_options', which could be used to retrieve available values before updating, but the description does not mention prerequisites or when to choose this tool over others.

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