Update Glue Record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the replacement semantics ('pass all IPs you want set, not just additions'), which is exactly the destructive-behavior detail an agent needs to avoid accidental data loss. It restates 'Idempotent' from the annotations, so not a full 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, immediately followed by the one behavioral trap that matters. No filler.

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?

Three required params, no output schema, rich annotations — the description covers the key gotcha (full replacement) that an agent could otherwise get wrong. Minor gaps remain around preconditions and permissions, but nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the ips property already documents itself as a 'Full replacement set,' so the schema carries the burden. The description's 'not just additions' phrasing adds a useful nuance about caller intent, but otherwise duplicates the schema rather than extending it.

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?

Specific verb (update) plus resource (glue record) plus scope (the IP addresses associated with an existing record). An agent can distinguish it from create_glue_record, delete_glue_record, and list_glue_records without opening a schema.

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 glue record' (this is not for creating records), but no alternative or precondition is named — nothing says when to prefer this over delete+create, or whether the record must already exist and be owned by the caller.

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