Update SDN vnet

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the specific fields that can be updated, but does not disclose important details like whether updates are partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. This is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is good, but it omits critical information. It is not front-loaded with the most important details (e.g., required parameter). The brevity sacrifices necessary completeness.

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 6 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is under-documented. Important context is missing: what happens if the vnet doesn't exist, the meaning of the 'delete' parameter, the effect of vlanaware, and the return value. Sibling tools suggest a family of SDN update operations, but this description does not clarify its specific role.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions only 3 of 6 parameters (tag, comment, alias) with no explanation of their meaning, leaving delete, vlanaware, and name (required) undocumented. The description provides minimal semantics beyond the schema itself.

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 states 'Update an SDN vnet' with a list of fields (tag, comment, alias), which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_sdn_subnet or create_sdn_vnet, and the list of fields is incomplete (missing delete, vlanaware, name).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_sdn_vnet, delete_sdn_vnet, or other update tools. There are no prerequisites or use cases mentioned.

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