arvan_update_subnet

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive. The description adds examples of updatable fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like immediate effect, side effects, or region dependencies.

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?

Single sentence, efficient and to the point. No unnecessary information. However, lacks structure like sections or bullet points but acceptable given brevity.

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?

No output schema and moderate complexity. Examples help but do not cover important context like whether region is required for certain subnets or the result of the update. Could be more complete for a mutation 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides examples for the 'fields' parameter (dns_servers, enable_dhcp, subnet_gateway), adding some meaning, but no details for subnet_id or region, and the examples are not exhaustive.

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?

Clearly states the action 'Update a subnet' with examples of modifiable fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and get. However, lacks explicit mention that it modifies an existing subnet.

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?

Implies usage for updating subnet settings but provides no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or comparison with other update tools.

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