iaas_patch_machine_network_interface

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

Annotations already declare that this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: changes to name and IPv4 address will not propagate to the cloud endpoint for provisioned machines, and only certain fields are supported. It does not cover response behavior or permission requirements, but with annotations present the disclosure is strong.

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 short and front-loads the main action and constraints. The opening line repeats the tool title, and the endpoint line restates the path, so there is minor redundancy, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 complete enough for a mutation tool whose annotations declare safety characteristics and whose schema fully documents all four parameters. It adds the important non-propagation caveat and supported-field constraint, though it does not describe the response body, which is not required because no output schema exists.

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%, so path parameters and nested body fields are already documented in detail. The description lists the supported update fields, which aligns with the schema but does not add syntax, format, or other meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: patch a machine network interface identified by machine id and network interface id. It also names the exact fields that can be updated, so an agent can distinguish this from get_machine_network_interface and update_machine without opening other schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool by saying it patches a network interface for a specific machine and constrains updates to name, description, IPv4 address, and custom properties. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as iaas_get_machine_network_interface or iaas_update_machine, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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