update_virtual_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says the tool 'modifies the configuration' but never states whether vip_data is a full replacement or a partial merge, whether the VIP name itself can be changed, whether a commit/apply step is needed, or whether changes are reversible — all critical for a firewall config mutation.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the Parameters and Returns lists mostly duplicate the schema verbatim and the Returns section ('Update status', 'Configuration changes applied') is vague filler rather than useful information. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested vip_data object (additionalProperties: true) whose expected keys are documented nowhere. An agent can call it, but cannot know what configuration body to send or how to interpret the vague return.

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 schema already documents all four parameters; the description largely restates them. The one genuine addition is that vdom is optional and falls back to the device default, but vip_data — an unconstrained object — gets no field-level guidance beyond 'Updated configuration as JSON'.

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 and resource ('Update an existing Virtual IP on a FortiGate device') and the second sentence clarifies scope to configuration changes on an existing object. The verb 'update' implicitly distinguishes it from create_virtual_ip, delete_virtual_ip, get_virtual_ip_detail and list_virtual_ips, but no sibling is ever named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'existing Virtual IP' — the object must already exist — but the description never says so directly nor states what happens if the name is absent. There is no routing guidance against create_virtual_ip for new objects or update_cmdb_object for generic configuration edits.

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