Update network interface

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by explicitly labeling the operation as 'HIGH RISK' and requiring user confirmation, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the action and a second sentence highlighting risk and required confirmation. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and additional caution, with 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 has 10 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and the description only covers the high-risk confirmation aspect, it leaves the agent uninformed about parameter usage and expected behavior. Annotations help but the description is incomplete for effective 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?

The input schema has only 10% parameter description coverage (only 'confirm' has a description). The tool description does not explain any of the other 9 parameters, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema. For low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 the verb 'Update' and resource 'existing network interface', directly distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_node_network' and 'delete_node_network'. The addition of 'HIGH RISK' further clarifies the purpose.

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 description explicitly advises to ask for user confirmation due to high risk, which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, though the name and context imply updating existing interfaces.

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