connector_network_put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions confirm as a safety mechanism and dry_run for preview, but omits details about side effects, idempotency, authentication, or rate limits. Additionally, the description lists a 'settings' parameter that is not present in the input schema, introducing inconsistency.

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 concise and uses a clear bullet list for parameters. However, the inclusion of an undocumented 'settings' parameter slightly reduces clarity. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description should fully cover usage. It addresses most parameters but misses format guidance (e.g., path syntax, console_id pattern) and has the settings discrepancy. The output schema is mentioned but not detailed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains console_id, path, body, confirm, and dry_run, but includes 'settings' which is not in the schema, causing confusion. The explanations are brief and lack formatting details.

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 'Proxy a PUT request to the Network Application via Cloud Connector,' which specifies the verb (PUT), resource (Network Application), and mechanism (Cloud Connector). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connector_network_get, connector_network_post, etc.

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 explains key usage with parameters: confirm ('Must be True to execute') and dry_run ('Preview without sending'). While it doesn't explicitly compare to other methods, the HTTP method in the name implies its use case for updates/creations.

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