Updates an existing zone by ID so you can modify its name, region, tags, compute assignments, placement policy, and related settings through a PATCH request.
Update zone PATCH /iaas/api/zones/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the zone. (path) | |
| body | Yes | Specification for a zone. — Zone specification | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /iaas/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so an agent knows this is a non-idempotent remote mutation. The description adds nothing beyond restating the endpoint, for example not clarifying whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved (important given PATCH semantics) or whether the update is asynchronous.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The endpoint path duplicates what the title and annotations already show, so the small amount of text carries little informational value.
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?
This is a mutation tool with a large nested body schema, no output schema, and no detail on partial-update semantics or what the response contains. The description leaves key questions an agent must answer before invoking it, such as whether required fields must be resent on every PATCH, unaddressed, though the rich schema and annotations do offset some of the burden.
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 every parameter and nested field (name, regionId, tags, computeIds, placementPolicy, etc.) is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or field-selection guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 is essentially the verb 'Update' plus the resource 'zone', followed by the raw PATCH path. An agent can tell it mutates a zone, but nothing about scope, such as whether it replaces or patches the zone spec, is added beyond the name and annotations.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this over ialas_get_zones, iaas_create_zone, or iaas_update_project_zone_assignments, nor about prerequisites such as zone ownership or project context. The only hint is the HTTP verb PATCH embedded in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.