sophos_update_exclusion

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation (update fields) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when fields are omitted. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately identifies the action, resource, and scope. No extraneous text; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, it lacks information about the expected response or return value, which would be helpful for a complete mental model.

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. The description reiterates the updatable fields (value, comment, scanMode) and clarifies that any subset can be updated ('and/or'), adding minor value beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 action ('update'), the resource ('global scanning exclusion'), and the specific updatable fields (value, comment, scanMode). This distinguishes it from siblings like sophos_create_exclusion (create), sophos_delete_exclusion (delete), and sophos_get_exclusion (get).

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 implies use when modifying an existing exclusion, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., sophos_update_allowed_item). No prerequisites or context for selection are given.

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