update_queue_tree

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

With annotations providing idempotentHint and destructiveHint, the description adds no additional behavioral context. It merely restates that it updates an existing entry, which is already obvious from the name. It does not clarify whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, nor does it mention any side effects beyond the update itself.

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 compact: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a notes section with three concise lines for parameter formats. Every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (15 parameters, no schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of several parameters (e.g., bucket_size, packet_mark, queue, device), does not clarify the role of the required 'name' parameter for identifying the entry, and fails to address whether null values mean 'do not change' or 'clear the field'. The brief notes cover only a fraction of the input schema.

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?

The description provides useful format examples for a subset of parameters: bandwidth units (10M, 512k) for max_limit/limit_at/burst_limit/burst_threshold, duration format (8s) for burst_time, and priority range (1-8). However, this covers only 6 of 15 parameters, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for the remaining 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 the tool 'Updates an existing queue tree entry' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions the key modifiable fields (bandwidth limits, parent, priority). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_queue_tree, get_queue_tree, and remove_queue_tree.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing queue tree entry, and the word 'existing' indicates it is not for creation. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'create_queue_tree', the context is clear from the sibling set and the verb 'updates'.

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