sophos_update_isolation_exclusion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or whether updates are immediate. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from a more structured format, such as listing the modifiable parameters explicitly. It is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of required parameters (tenant_id, exclusion_id), does not describe return values, and lacks context on the update behavior (e.g., partial updates allowed?).

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 adds marginal value by mentioning the updatable fields (direction, remote addresses, ports, comment), but the schema already describes each parameter, including the required tenant_id and exclusion_id which are not highlighted.

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 identifies the tool as updating an isolation exclusion and lists the modifiable fields (direction, remote addresses, ports, or comment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_create_isolation_exclusion, sophos_get_isolation_exclusion, etc.

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 modifying an existing exclusion, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus creating or deleting, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., 'do not use if the exclusion is in use').

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