update_address_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the merge/patch semantics and the return value ("Update status") — both genuinely useful. It says nothing about required permissions, what happens on a nonexistent object name, or whether vdom defaults to the device's management VDOM, leaving material behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the merge rule, then a compact example, then a short parameter list. Slight waste in the parameter block, which repeats the input schema descriptions almost verbatim and adds little, though it costs only four lines.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, how merge semantics work, an example payload, and the return value. Only failure modes and vdom defaulting behavior remain unexplained.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a concrete address_data example ({"subnet": "192.0.2.40 255.255.255.255", "comment": "HR workstation"}) for a free-form nested object with additionalProperties: true — real added value the schema cannot provide. The remaining parameter lines largely restate schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing address object") and enumerates the object subtypes it covers (comment, subnet, range, FQDN), which lets an agent distinguish it from update_service_object, update_firewall_policy, or generic update_cmdb_object. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 second sentence establishes the crucial partial-update contract: "Only the fields present in address_data change; FortiOS merges them into the object." That tells an agent exactly how to safely call it without overwriting untouched fields. There are no exclusions or explicit pointers to create_address_object for new objects.

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