sophos_update_isolation_exclusion

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

The description says 'Update' which implies mutation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations. However, it provides no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as required permissions, idempotency behavior, or side effects (e.g., whether partial updates are allowed or if the entire exclusion is replaced).

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, concise sentence that effectively summarizes the tool's action and the key updatable fields. It has no unnecessary words or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

While the description covers the main updatable fields, it omits mention of the required parameters (tenant_id, exclusion_id) which are essential context for using the tool. With no output schema, the description could also benefit from noting any response expectations. However, the tool's relatively simple purpose and high schema coverage mitigate the gaps, resulting in a moderate score.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with 100% description coverage, listing each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Updated traffic direction'). The description's mention of 'direction, remote addresses, ports, or comment' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'isolation exclusion', and lists the specific fields that can be updated (direction, remote addresses, ports, or comment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, list, or get, which have different verbs or purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when an update is needed, or when to use create/delete instead). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing exclusion ID, or context like 'use this after getting an exclusion'.

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