Update HTTP forward

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

Annotations declare destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context: `frame` resets to false unless provided, the `host` cannot be changed, and the tool returns the stored forward. It doesn't describe authentication or rate limits, but adds enough beyond annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value. Each sentence (purpose, return, frame reset, host immutability/alternative) adds distinct value with no filler.

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?

With annotations covering destructive/idempotent/open-world traits and full schema descriptions, the description fills remaining gaps: return value, frame reset semantics, and host immutability. It could clarify why `host` is required if immutable, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents each parameter. The description adds a key constraint not in the schema: `host` cannot be changed, and reinforces the `frame` default reset behavior. This extra meaning justifies above the 3 baseline.

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?

States a specific verb 'Update' and resource 'HTTP forward', with scope 'existing' and 'for a domain'. This clearly separates it from create_forward, delete_forward, and get_forward siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

Description says to use this for existing forwards and explicitly directs 'to move a forward, delete it and create it again' for host changes, providing an alternative. However, it doesn't state when to use update_forward versus other siblings like patch or upsert, or any prerequisites beyond the name.

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