connector_network_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two genuinely useful traits: confirm must be True to execute, and dry_run previews without sending. However, it says nothing about what state PATCH mutates or destroys, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or how errors surface, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a write-class proxy.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. But the arg list restates schema fields and includes a phantom 'settings' entry, so the wrapping is not purely additive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details are optional and adequately covered. But for a mutation proxy with zero annotations, the description omits the 'controller' parameter and invents a 'settings' parameter, and gives no when-to-use context against the sibling network-method tools, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 only 17%, so the description should compensate, and it partially does by labeling console_id, path, and body. But it introduces a 'settings: Application settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema at all (misleading), while omitting the documented 'controller' parameter entirely. The mismatch actively harms correct invocation.

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: it proxies a PATCH request to the Network Application via Cloud Connector. This clearly separates it from the sibling HTTP-method variants (connector_network_post, _put, _delete, _get), though the differentiation comes largely from the method word rather than an explicit comparison to those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use PATCH versus the sibling connector_network_put/post/delete tools, nor on required scoping or preconditions. The only usage-adjacent detail is the confirm/dry_run convention, which is behavioral rather than a selection criterion. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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