update_address_list_entry

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

The annotations already mark the operation as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: passing "" clears comment/timeout, and a change is confirmed on the device before success is reported. This does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three short lines with no filler: the purpose comes first, and each note adds a distinct fact. The structure is front-loaded and easy for an agent to process.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the core update/clear/confirmation behavior is stated. Still, for an 8-parameter tool, the description omits the meanings of several updatable fields and does not route to create/get/enable/disable siblings, leaving clear gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, but it only explains clearing for comment/timeout and the lookup role of list_name and address. It leaves family, disabled, new_list_name, and the null-vs-empty semantics for optional fields undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('updates an address list entry') and specifies how the entry is found ('by its current list name and address'). It is clear this operates on an existing entry, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the enable/disable address list entry siblings.

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 locating phrase implies the entry must already exist and that list_name/address identify it, which is a usable usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use vs create/list/enable/disable statement, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word 'updates'.

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