opn_haproxy_update

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

The description fully discloses that changes are not applied until opn_reconfigure_haproxy is called, that configtest should be performed first, and the return format. It also explains the config parameter behavior (partial updates) and enable/disable pattern. No annotations exist to contradict.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, config pattern, resource types, and workflow notes. No wasted words.

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 (update on multiple HAProxy resource types) and absence of output schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, parameters, allowed values, workflow dependencies, and return format. It enables correct invocation without missing critical information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: lists valid resource_type values, explains config as a partial update object with enable/disable example, and implies uuid as identifier. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 existing HAProxy resource' and lists specific resource types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like opn_haproxy_add, opn_haproxy_delete, etc.

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?

It states when to use (modify any field on an existing resource) and provides critical workflow guidance (call configtest first, then reconfigure). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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