opnsense_kea_subnet_update

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates a subnet and requires a subsequent apply. It does not mention idempotency, what happens if the UUID does not exist, whether omitted optional fields are left unchanged or cleared, or any potential side effects.

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 with two sentences, immediately stating the purpose and necessary follow-up action. No filler or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what happens when optional parameters are omitted (e.g., are they preserved or reset), error handling, or return values. For a tool with 10 parameters and a required apply step, more context is needed for safe invocation.

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% with each parameter having its own description. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameters.

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 'Update an existing Kea DHCPv4 subnet', specifying the verb (Update) and the resource (existing Kea DHCPv4 subnet). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list by focusing on updating an existing subnet.

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 instructs to run opnsense_kea_apply afterwards, providing critical post-update context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use update versus create or other operations, though the tool name and siblings imply the distinction. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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