update_interface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'update' — it doesn't mention that changes may require apply_immediately or that some fields are nullable to clear settings. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the core action. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update tool, though it could add a brief note about which fields are updatable without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mutation tool with 10 optional parameters, it would help to note that null values clear settings, that apply_immediately controls when changes take effect, and that interface_id must come from search_interface_configs (though the schema already covers the latter). The description is adequate but leaves the agent to infer 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%, so the schema documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the interface_id parameter description in the schema is notably detailed (explains 'wan', 'lan', 'optN' naming and source from search_interface_configs). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 interface by ID' clearly states the verb (update), resource (interface), and identifier (by ID). It distinguishes from create_interface and delete_interface siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update_* tools or mention what fields can be updated.

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 implies usage when an existing interface needs modification, and the interface_id parameter description adds guidance on sourcing the ID from search_interface_configs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like create_interface or apply_interface_changes, nor mention the apply_immediately behavior as a decision point.

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