update_ssh_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the key partial-update behavior: only provided fields are changed. However, it says nothing about error handling (e.g., non-existent ID), return values, reversibility, or authorization requirements. Basic but partially transparent.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and object. It communicates purpose and a key usage note without any waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple CRUD update tool with 2 params and one nested object, the description covers the core purpose and partial-update behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves ambiguous what the tool returns (e.g., updated object, success message) and what happens on failure (e.g., invalid ID). These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (id and host), with host explicitly described as 'Partial or full host configuration object'. The description's instruction 'Pass only the fields to change' reinforces but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing SSH host by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_ssh_host and delete_ssh_host. The phrase 'Pass only the fields to change' further clarifies the partial-update nature, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use it: for updating an existing SSH host identified by ID, and not for creating or deleting. It says 'existing SSH host' which differentiates from create, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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