update_application_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the merge/partial-update behavior and the return shape (status/message), which is helpful. But it omits permissions, locking requirements, validation failures, or side effects on policies referencing the list — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 lead statement and the partial-update note are front-loaded and the Args list earns its place given 0% schema coverage. The Returns block duplicates the existing output schema and could be dropped, which is the main source of waste.

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?

The output schema exists, so omitting return detail would be acceptable — and the parameter set is fully explained. Yet for a 6-param mutation tool with no annotations, the description should say something about required permissions, ADOM scoping, or the effect of changing action fields; those are missing.

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% and there are no enums, so the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning — and it delivers, documenting each field's purpose plus the allowed values ('enable'/'disable', 'pass'/'block'). Only 'adom' and 'name' are left as bare labels, which is a minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing application-control list.' This clearly distinguishes it from create_/delete_/get_/list_application_list siblings by the standard naming convention, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or boundary.

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?

'Only specified fields will be updated' conveys partial-update semantics, implying this is the tool for modifying a subset of settings. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over recreation, nor any stated prerequisites such as the list needing to exist or the ADOM being locked.

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