opn_update_alias

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the read-modify-write behavior, states that only provided parameters are changed, and notes that aliases are metadata definitions not affecting traffic until referenced. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior, though it could mention error handling or side effects.

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 and well-structured: a clear action statement, usage scenarios, behavioral note, prerequisite, parameter list with descriptions, and return format. No unnecessary words, highly front-loaded.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, prerequisites, parameter details, and return value. It also provides a behavioral note about savepoint protection.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to each parameter: uuid as alias UUID from list, name format, content separated by newlines, alias_type with enumerated values, and enabled as boolean. This far exceeds the bare 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 it updates an existing firewall alias by UUID, specifying the exact actions (rename, change content, description, type) and differentiates from siblings like opn_add_alias, opn_delete_alias, and opn_toggle_alias.

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 explicitly says when to use (rename, change content, etc.) and recommends using opn_list_firewall_aliases first. It also explains that savepoint protection is not needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative update tools for other resources (e.g., opn_update_firewall_rule), but it is clear within its own domain.

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