update_dhcp_backend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds the backend-switching scope but does not disclose potential side effects such as service restarts or lease impact, which would be valuable beyond the annotation coverage.

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 9-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise for the simple scope.

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?

With a simple two-parameter schema, output schema, and safe annotations, the description covers the core action. However, it lacks context on operational impact (e.g., brief DHCP interruption, whether changes require a follow-up apply) which could be important for an agent deciding to invoke the tool. It is adequate but not enriched.

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% and both parameters are well documented. The description's parenthetical ('ISC DHCP vs Kea') essentially repeats the schema's dhcpbackend enum values without adding new semantic information, so it does not enhance the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('DHCP server backend') and clearly scopes the action to the two backend options ('ISC DHCP vs Kea'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_dhcp_server_config or apply_dhcp_changes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_dhcp_server_config or apply_dhcp_changes. It does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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