nodesUpdateNodeSubInterface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Update' but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., network disruption), or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, using only two sentences without unnecessary details. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key updatable fields or constraints, though it avoids verbosity and earns its place efficiently.

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, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for a mutation tool in a network management domain.

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 the schema fully documents all 15 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating to pass 'resource ID and the fields to update', which is redundant with the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 resource ('a specific sub-interface'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodesUpdateNodeLoopback' or 'nodesUpdatePort', which also update specific resources, leaving room for improvement in distinguishing this specific tool.

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 provides minimal guidance by stating 'To use this tool, pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments', but it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'nodesAddNodeSubInterfaces' for creation or 'nodesDeleteNodeSubInterface' for deletion). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, offering limited help for selection.

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