cdn_update_cdn_zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the smart identifier resolution (a useful behavioral trait) and mentions that a return value is the updated zone details. However, it does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects or permission requirements. This leaves important operational ambiguity for a mutation.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. It is concise with no filler or repetition. The front-loaded purpose and clear parameter list help an agent quickly scan and understand the tool. It could be slightly tighter by avoiding redundant phrases like 'CORS policy configuration', but overall it is efficient.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema is indicated but not shown, the description covers the basic purpose and each parameter's role. It misses critical operational details like whether the update is incremental or replaces the whole configuration, whether the zone must already exist, and what errors or validations occur. For a moderately complex mutation tool, this is a noticeable gap but not fatal.

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. The Args section gives one-line explanations for all 7 parameters, clarifying the zone_identifier flexibility (origin domain, CDN domain, or ID) and the meaning of booleans and lists (e.g., 'Block AI/crawler bots', 'List of IP addresses to block'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema names, though it stops short of providing formats or detailed value constraints.

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+resource: 'Update a CDN zone configuration.' It differentiates from sibling CDN tools (create, delete, list, purge) by focusing on updating an existing zone, and adds a 'Smart identifier resolution' detail that clarifies how the zone is identified. However, the phrase 'CDN zone configuration' is somewhat generic without the Args list, so it does not fully match the precision of the best examples.

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 use when modifying an existing CDN zone, and the smart identifier resolution gives guidance on accepted inputs for zone_identifier. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cdn_create_cdn_zone or cdn_purge_cdn_zone, nor mention prerequisites or exclusions. There is enough context for an agent to infer the primary use case, but no explicit routing.

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