update_subnet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but doesn't disclose side effects, whether partial updates are supported, permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields. The tool's mutation behavior is implied but not detailed.

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 concise with a single main sentence and a simple parameter list. It avoids waste, though the parameter list partially duplicates schema info. The structure is easy to skim and adequately sized.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and minimal behavioral details, this description is incomplete. It explains what and which parameters, but lacks usage context, side effects, and return behavior. Having an output schema helps but the description still feels under-specified for a 4-parameter update operation.

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?

The description lists each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'New description (optional)') which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the explanations are minimal and largely redundant with the schema's property names and default null values. It doesn't provide format, examples, or constraints.

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 'Update an existing subnet' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_subnet and delete_subnet, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_ip_address. The scope is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for modifying existing subnets or what scenarios call for create/delete instead. The existence of sibling tools like create_subnet and delete_subnet is not addressed.

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