Update SDN controller

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'HIGH RISK' and requiring user confirmation, which complements the destructiveHint: true annotation. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, each delivering essential information (purpose and risk). It is concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail on parameters.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical risk and confirmation mechanism but lacks details on parameter usage, return values, or prerequisites. Completeness is moderate.

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 only 17% (only the confirm parameter has a description). The tool description does not explain any other parameters (asn, ebgp, name, peers, delete), so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Update an existing SDN controller' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (SDN controller), and implies it modifies an existing entity, distinguishing it from siblings like create_sdn_controller and delete_sdn_controller.

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?

Explicitly flags 'HIGH RISK — ask the user to confirm before invoking', providing clear safety guidance. The confirm parameter supports this. However, it does not compare against alternatives like create or delete.

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