npm_update_dead_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies partial-update semantics ('Provide only fields to change') but does not specify whether omitted fields are preserved, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains. The tool could overwrite the entire host configuration, and this ambiguity is a significant gap.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It avoids unnecessary wording and is appropriately concise for a simple update tool.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It lacks details about the required 'id', the meaning of specific fields, success/failure responses, and any side effects. While it conveys the basic purpose, it is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds the key semantic that the optional fields are the ones to change, which is valuable. However, it does not explain each parameter (e.g., certificate_id, advanced_config) beyond their names, and the 'id' parameter is not explicitly mentioned as the target selector, though it is in the schema.

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 the resource ('a 404 (dead) host'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like npm_create_dead_host, npm_delete_dead_host, and npm_list_dead_hosts. The parenthetical '(dead)' clarifies the type of host being updated.

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 clear context: it is for updating an existing dead host, and the instruction 'Provide only fields to change' signals that this is a partial-update operation. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, such as when to use create or delete instead.

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