pve_sdn_zone_update

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the tool as 'MUTATION', notes 'RISK_LOW', explains dry-run default, and states changes are pending until pve_sdn_apply. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior and side effects. No contradictions.

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 very concise with 3 sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and key details. However, the structure could be improved with slight formatting (e.g., separating key points) for better readability.

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 (7 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core workflow but misses details like prerequisites (zone must exist), error handling, or the role of `confirm`. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `options` and `delete` (sets fields vs unsets keys), but other parameters like `zone`, `digest`, `confirm`, and `lock_token` are not explained. The description only partially addresses parameter semantics.

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 'update an SDN zone (PENDING)' and explains the mechanism via `options` and `delete`. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like pve_sdn_zone_create and pve_sdn_zone_delete by its update focus and pending state. However, it could be more explicit about modifying existing zones.

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 mentions 'Dry-run by default' and 'inert until pve_sdn_apply', implying a workflow with pve_sdn_apply. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this versus create/delete. Some usage context is provided but not fully explicit.

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