update_gateway

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds little beyond the annotations, saying only 'update' without disclosing side effects, error conditions, or whether changes are applied immediately. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction, but it adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 10 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps. It does not mention the apply_immediately parameter's role or the existence of apply_routing_changes, which is a sibling tool. The description also omits guidance on obtaining the gateway_id via search_gateways. While the schema fills in parameter details, the overall workflow context is thin.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, nor does it need to.

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 an existing routing gateway by ID' clearly specifies the action (update), the resource (routing gateway), and the identification method (by ID). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_gateway, delete_gateway, and update_default_gateway by emphasizing 'existing' and 'by ID'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the gateway ID via search_gateways) or the relationship to apply_routing_changes. The use case is only implied by the word 'existing'.

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