sophos_update_exploit_mitigation_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists capabilites but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full (i.e., missing fields unchanged or reset), permission requirements, or rate limits. The basic description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second lists capabilities. It is concise with no fluff, though the comma-separated list could be clearer if structured as a bullet or semicolon list.

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 the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the main functionality but lacks details on behavior (e.g., partial vs full update), error conditions, and prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'toggle overall protection' maps to 'protected') but does not provide significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool updates exploit mitigation settings for an application, listing specific actions like updating paths, toggling protection, and enabling/disabling mitigations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_create_exploit_mitigation_app and sophos_delete_exploit_mitigation_app.

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 usage for updating an existing application but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having created the application first or provide when-not guidance.

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