sophos_update_ips_exclusion

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, and openWorldHint: true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond confirming it is an update operation. No details on update semantics (partial vs full), required permissions, error handling, or side effects are provided.

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 sentence of 12 words, efficiently conveying the core functionality without any unnecessary words 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 description lacks details about return values, error scenarios, update behavior (e.g., whether it's a partial update or full replacement), and the context of required parameters. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions some updatable fields but generalizes 'ports' into one term while the schema has two separate parameters (local_ports, remote_ports). It does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema 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' and the resource 'IPS exclusion' along with specific fields (direction, remote addresses, ports, or comment). The tool name itself includes 'ips', distinguishing it from other update exclusion tools like sophos_update_exclusion or sophos_update_isolation_exclusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on when not to use it. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without decision support.

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