update_config_host_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the instruction to read the GET or /schema endpoint first, which is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose what happens on partial updates, validation failures, or whether the body replaces the entire config.

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 short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The Args section is minimal but earns its place by clarifying the two parameters. It could be slightly more structured, but there is no wasted text.

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?

For a 2-parameter update tool with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is the open-ended body schema: the agent is told to discover fields elsewhere, which is acceptable but leaves the tool incomplete on its own.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as the request payload, but the body is an open object with additionalProperties: true and no field details. The instruction to read the GET or /schema endpoint is a workaround, not actual parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update HostConfig' with the HTTP path PUT /api/v1/config/host/{id}. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_config_host_by_id and list_config_host, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 by showing the HTTP method and path, and instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the update-vs-read distinction is clear from the verb and path.

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