ip_access_lists_update

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

The description only repeats the update action, adding no behavioral insights beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint false). No side effects, idempotency details, permissions, or error states are disclosed.

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 concise (6 words) and front-loaded, but lacks sufficient detail to be fully useful. It could be expanded with a brief note on typical use or parameter behavior without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the 5 parameters, partial schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (unseen), the description provides minimal context. It does not state return value format, update semantics, or how to properly construct the request.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the tool description fails to add meaning to the three undocumented parameters (label, ip_addresses, enabled). It does not explain the update behavior (e.g., merge vs replace).

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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (IP access list), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, somewhat reducing specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new list if the ID is unknown, or using get to verify state before update). No prerequisites or usage context are mentioned.

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