iaas_update_security_group

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation with idempotentHint=false. The description adds the useful behavioral limitation that only tags can be updated, but it does not clarify whether tag updates replace existing tags, what permissions are required, or what happens to other security group settings.

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 core operation, but the first sentence 'Update security group' is immediately repeated, wasting space. The endpoint is useful but the duplication makes it less efficient than it could be.

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 PATCH mutation with fully described parameters and annotations covering safety traits, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the tag-only scope, and the HTTP endpoint. It could be stronger by explaining tag replacement semantics, but no output schema exists and the core call requirements are clear.

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, tags, and apiVersion fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond the schema and only reiterates that updates are tag-only.

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 security group) and adds the important scope constraint that only tag updates are supported. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from similar siblings such as iaas_reconfigure_security_group or iaas_change_security_groups, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentence 'Only tag updates are supported' gives implicit guidance that this tool should not be used for rule or membership changes. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus related tools like iaas_reconfigure_security_group, nor does it state prerequisites.

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