Update inbound

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

The description discloses the replace-instead-of-patch behavior ('This replaces the inbound configuration'), which adds nuance beyond what annotations convey. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's merge requirement is a behavioral consequence worth surfacing. 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical usage caution (fetch first, merge, no partials) lands immediately after. Every word earns 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description addresses the single biggest risk (destructive replace) and prescribes the mitigation (fetch-first-merge). It doesn't cover return values or auth requirements, but those are covered by annotations' safety profile and the absence of an output schema. The most decision-relevant context is present.

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 70%, so most parameters (id, port, remark, protocol, settings, sniffing, streamSettings) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the 'merge into full object' note implicitly warns against sending partial parameter sets. The 3 undocumented fields (enable, listen, expiryTime) are reasonably self-explanatory by name, so the gap 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?

States a specific verb (update) + resource (existing inbound by ID), clearly distinguishing it from create_inbound and get_inbound within the sibling set. The purpose is unambiguous, though it relies on the verb+resource pairing rather than an explicit sibling contrast.

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?

Gives explicit, actionable guidance: fetch with get_inbound first, then merge changes into the full object rather than sending partial ones. This is strong when-to-use guidance addressing the most common misuse. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it versus create_inbound, but the merge instruction is highly specific and valuable.

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