update_traffic_shaper

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

The description is tautological, essentially restating the tool name. It adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). There is no mention of how updates are applied, whether they affect running config, or implications of the apply_immediately parameter. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value.

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 unnecessary words. It immediately states the primary action and target. This is appropriate for a simple update tool and adheres to the principle that every sentence should earn its place.

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?

The description is minimal but paired with a fully documented schema, annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), and an output schema. It lacks context about when to apply changes or how the update interacts with the running system, but for a basic CRUD operation, the structured fields cover most essential information.

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 all 8 parameters having individual descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation. The 'by ID' hint repeats shaper_id's schema description.

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: 'Update an existing traffic shaper by ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('traffic shaper'), and the phrase 'existing... by ID' distinguishes it from create/delete siblings.

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 create/delete or search operations. It does not mention prerequisites like needing an existing shaper ID obtained from search_traffic_shapers, nor does it suggest alternatives. Usage is only vaguely 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.