iaas_update_internal_network_ip_range

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, and the description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP method/path that is already the annotation title. It never explains PATCH semantics here — notably that the body schema requires name, startIPAddress, and endIPAddress, so this behaves more like a full replacement of the range than a partial patch — nor what permissions are needed or what happens to omitted fields like tags or fabricNetworkIds.

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 short lines with the purpose front-loaded, which is efficient. However, the second line ('PATCH /iaas/api/network-ip-ranges/{id}') duplicates the annotation title verbatim and does not earn its place as prose.

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 a nested body object and no output schema, the description should cover what is replaced versus preserved, whether the call is synchronous, and what the response contains. None of that is present, and the schema alone cannot convey replacement semantics.

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 the id, body fields, and apiVersion are fully documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about the path id, the required body fields, or the apiVersion parameter.

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 and resource ('Update internal network IP range'), so the agent knows this mutates an existing IP range. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings iaas_update_external_network_ip_range, iaas_create_internal_network_ip_range, or iaas_get_internal_network_ip_range, leaving the internal/external and create/update/get split to inference.

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 on when to use this versus the external-network variant, the create variant, or the get variant, and no preconditions such as needing an existing range ID. The only usage signal is the implicit 'update means the resource already exists'.

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