sophos_update_web_control_local_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions updating specific fields but does not disclose whether updates are merging or replacing, the effect of omitting optional fields, or any permission, rate limit, or idempotency details. Some behavioral context is given, but significant gaps remain.

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 13 words, front-loading the action and key fields. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, the behavior when optional fields are omitted, or any prerequisites. It is minimally viable but lacks completeness for an agent to use confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description directly maps to three parameters (url, categoryId, comment) but adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain tenant_id and local_site_id, but those are typical identifiers. The description summarizes the updatable fields but does not enhance understanding.

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 a Web Control local site override') and specifies the updatable fields (URL, categoryId, comment). The verb 'Update' and required parameter local_site_id distinguish it from sibling create and delete tools.

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 existing overrides but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus creating new ones (sophos_create_web_control_local_site) or other alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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