sophos_update_exclusion

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral details such as authorization needs, side effects, or response format. It simply restates the action.

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?

A single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a straightforward update tool with no output schema and moderate parameter count, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks information about partial updates, response contents, or broader context like how this relates to exclusion management.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds limited value beyond confirming the updatable fields. It lists the same fields as in the schema, offering no additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update', identifies the resource 'existing global scanning exclusion', and lists the updatable fields (value, comment, scanMode). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_exclusion or list_exclusions.

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 this tool is for modifying existing exclusions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_exclusion or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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