update_dhcp_server_config

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context like whether unspecified values are preserved, or that apply_immediately defaults to true. It doesn't warn about requiring an existing interface or the need for a separate apply step.

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?

One concise sentence, no filler, immediately says what it does. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks usage context, relationship to sibling tools, and important behavioral details like the apply_immediately parameter or that the interface must already exist.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'pool range, lease times, etc.' which are already in schema. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 'Update DHCP server configuration (pool range, lease times, etc.)' clearly states the verb and resource, with examples of fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_dhcp_backend or update_dhcp_address_pool, relying on the name for differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that changes may need to be applied via apply_dhcp_changes or that it targets an existing server identified by interface, which would help selection among many DHCP-related tools.

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