Update Zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the non-obvious destructive semantics: the sent zone replaces the stored one and omitted fields are cleared, not preserved. It does not mention concurrency/fingerprint behavior, but the schema documents that parameter.

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, each earning its place: what the tool does, the required read-modify-write workflow, and the most important gotcha. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The critical update semantics are fully captured, the output schema covers return values, and the input schema covers all 6 parameters including fingerprint. An agent has what it needs to call this tool safely without opening the sibling tools.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the 'zone' parameter by explaining that it is the full replacement object and that omission of fields clears them. This goes beyond the schema's 'Complete Zone resource' description.

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 the operation and resource ('Update a zone in a workspace'), which separates it from the sibling zone operations (create_zone, get_zone, delete_zone, revert_zone). It does not explicitly call out those alternatives, but the zone scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides strong usage guidance: read with get_zone first, send back the whole zone, and be aware that omitted fields are cleared. It gives clear context for a read-modify-write workflow, though it does not explicitly state when to choose create_zone or delete_zone instead.

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