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 agent knows the tool is a safe, idempotent mutation. The description adds the instruction to read the GET or schema first, which hints at the need for a full or structured payload. It does not disclose any additional side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but the annotations cover the core behavioral profile.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action, followed by the endpoint and parameter explanations. Each line serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation.

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 that the body is a free-form object and there is an output schema, the description relies on external references (GET/schema) for the payload structure. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, nor does it mention the response format. For a config update tool, this is slightly incomplete, but the idempotentHint and output schema provide some additional context.

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 explains that 'id' is a path parameter and 'body' is the request payload, and directs the agent to consult the GET or /schema endpoint for field expectations. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, but it does not detail the body structure or list any fields, leaving the agent to discover them externally.

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 HostConfig' and includes the HTTP method and path, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling update_config_* tools because it names the resource (host). However, it does not elaborate on what HostConfig contains, which is acceptable for purpose clarity.

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 explicit guidance to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' before sending the body, which tells the agent how to prepare the request. It also implicitly differentiates from other config updates by naming the resource. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the resource name makes that obvious.

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