update_ips_sensor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important partial-update behavior and lists the return keys (status/message), which is real added context. It says nothing about required permissions, whether a commit is needed for changes to take effect, or the effect on unlisted settings, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling exclusion, then Args and Returns. The Returns block mostly restates the output schema, slightly redundant, but nothing else is wasted.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers purpose, partial-update semantics, all parameter meanings, and return keys. Missing pieces are operational (ADOM lock, commit requirement) rather than core to invoking it correctly.

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 the description compensates by documenting all six parameters, including allowed values for scan_botnet_connections ("disable", "block", "monitor"). Values for block_malicious_url and extended_log are only implied as enable/disable, so the string-typed fields remain slightly ambiguous.

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 IPS sensor's top-level settings") and immediately scopes it to top-level settings, which separates it from the signature-override siblings named in the text. An agent can tell this apart from add/remove_ips_sensor_signature_override without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for signature work: "To change signature filters/overrides use add_ips_sensor_signature_override / remove_ips_sensor_signature_override instead." It also states the partial-update rule ("Only specified fields will be updated"), giving clear context, though it omits any note about prerequisites such as locking the ADOM before mutation.

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