update_device_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics (only provided fields change) and that it returns an update result, but omits permissions, whether a commit is required, lock/prerequisite behavior, and what happens on invalid values or failed writes.

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 leading sentence states the action and the key mutation semantics, followed by a structured Args list and return note. There is no filler, and the agent can parse it quickly.

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 description covers every parameter and important partial-update behavior, and an output schema exists so return details need not be expanded. It is only slightly incomplete for a no-annotation mutation tool because it does not address prerequisites, commit or locking requirements, or failure behavior.

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, and it does: all eight parameters are explained with added meaning beyond the schema. It gives IP address forms, a VLAN range, allowed role values, replacement semantics for allowaccess, and clarifies device and name as identifiers.

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: updates fields on a device-DB interface. The partial-update note distinguishes it from create_device_interface and delete_device_interface, but it does not explicitly name siblings or clarify boundaries against update_device or update_device_ipsec_phase1_interface.

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 this is for updating an existing interface and that only supplied fields change, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of create_device_interface, get_device_interface_config, or other update tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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