update_shaper_queue

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not repeat that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as partial update semantics, failure conditions, or the role of apply_immediately. 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 short sentence that front-loads the action and object. Zero redundant words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not clarify that unspecified fields remain unchanged or provide any workflow hint like obtaining the queue ID via search_shaper_queues. For an update tool, this is a moderate level of completeness.

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 every parameter (e.g., bandwidthtype, qlimit, apply_immediately) already documented. The description itself adds no parameter detail, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is acceptable.

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 uses a clear verb ('Update'), identifies the resource ('shaper queue'), and specifies scope ('existing...by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_shaper_queue and delete_shaper_queue.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of obtaining queue IDs via search_shaper_queues, and no exclusions. The only information is the action itself, leaving usage context implicit.

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