vrfsUpdateFabricVrf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update a specific VRF' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, side effects, or what happens to existing configurations not mentioned. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters and complex nested objects, 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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first states the purpose, the second provides basic usage instruction. There's no wasted text, though it could be more front-loaded with critical information about what 'update' entails. The structure is simple but effective for its limited content.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters with nested objects, mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' means in practice, what fields are actually modifiable versus read-only (many parameters in the schema are marked readOnly), or what the tool returns. For a VRF update tool in a network fabric context, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'resource ID and the fields to update' - it doesn't explain which fields are updatable versus read-only, or provide any context beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a specific VRF' which provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('VRF'), but it's vague about what fields can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'vrfsUpdateFabricStaticRoute' or 'fabricsUpdateFabric'. It doesn't specify that this updates VRF configuration fields like name, description, annotations, labels, ASN, or VNI.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing VRF), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new VRFs, which would use 'vrfsAddFabricVrfs'), or how it differs from similar update tools in the sibling list. The second sentence is just basic usage instruction, not contextual guidance.

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