update_haproxy_frontend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('existing' and 'by ID') but doesn't contradict annotations. It doesn't reveal side effects like config reload behavior, but the apply_immediately parameter in schema covers that.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without any waste.

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?

Despite being brief, the description is supported by a rich schema, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema. The only significant gap is usage guidance, which is already scored separately. For a tool of this complexity, the overall package is nearly complete, though the description could have mentioned partial-update semantics.

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%, with each parameter clearly documented including defaults and nested structures for bind_addresses. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('HAProxy frontend'), and scope ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_haproxy_frontend and delete_haproxy_frontend.

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. It does not mention prerequisites like obtaining frontend_id via search_haproxy_frontends, nor does it explain when to choose update over create/delete. The schema hints at the ID source, but the description itself offers no context.

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