portchannelsUpdatePortChannel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent or reversible, potential side effects (e.g., network disruption), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. It directly states the tool's purpose and basic usage without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key updatable fields or linking to the schema, but it's efficient given its brevity.

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 (17 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a mutation tool with rich schema but no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it falls short.

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%, meaning all 17 parameters are well-documented in the input schema with detailed descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'resource ID and fields to update' are needed, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('a specific port channel'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'portchannelsAddPortChannels' or 'portchannelsDeletePortChannel' beyond the verb, nor does it specify what fields can be updated. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about scope and differentiation.

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 usage guidance by mentioning that resource ID and fields to update are required as arguments. However, it offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'portchannelsAddPortChannels' for creation, 'portchannelsDeletePortChannel' for deletion), prerequisites, or constraints. This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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