update_nat_outbound_mapping

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but it is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether only provided fields are updated, whether changes require an apply step, or what happens on retries.

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, short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes and there is no redundant filler.

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 14-parameter update tool, the description does not explain that only supplied fields are modified, or that changes may need to be applied via apply_nat_changes. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but important operational context is missing.

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?

All 14 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the schema carries most of the semantic load. The description only reinforces that mapping_id selects the target, adding no extra value 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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('an existing outbound NAT mapping'), and the selection criterion ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_nat_outbound_mapping and delete_nat_outbound_mapping.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the mapping must already exist and be identified via a search operation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of needing to call apply_nat_changes after updates to make them effective.

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