update_vlan

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the core behavioral profile. The description adds no extra context such as immediate application effects or error handling, so it adds no value beyond the 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 clear sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simple CRUD update, the description plus schema (6 parameters, full coverage) plus annotations (safety profile) plus output schema make it adequately complete. Missing details like non-existent VLAN behavior are not essential given the schema and annotations, though a bit more context on immediate vs staged application could be helpful.

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%; all six parameters are individually documented (e.g., pcp range, tag range, apply_immediately default). The description's 'by ID' adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

Description: 'Update an existing VLAN by ID' uses a specific verb ('update'), a resource ('VLAN'), and clarifies the target is an existing object. This distinguishes it from sibling create_vlan/delete_vlan operations through the verb and the word 'existing'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives named. However, 'existing' implies not for creation, and the schema parameter vlan_id notes 'from search_vlans', giving a prerequisite. This provides implied usage but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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