update_local_in_policy6

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does describe the merge-style update behavior and the return shape, including status 'success'/'error', but it says nothing about permissions, ADOM locking, whether a follow-up commit is needed, or what happens when policyid does not exist. That leaves significant 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by well-structured Args, Returns, and Example sections. The length is justified by the 16 undocumented parameters, and the example clarifies the call shape, though the Returns block partly duplicates the output schema.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers every parameter, the merge semantics, and the return contract. The remaining gap concerns prerequisites and side effects, such as locking, commit, and failure modes, but otherwise it is sufficient to call the tool 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%, so the Args block is the only documentation for all 16 parameters, and it largely compensates: it explains enums ('accept'/'deny', 'enable'/'disable'), shows list versus scalar types, and spells out negate flags as 'Match all sources EXCEPT srcaddr.' A few entries are thin, such as 'New incoming interface(s)' and 'New local-in traffic logging setting'.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing IPv6 local-in policy.' That is enough to distinguish it from its siblings: create_local_in_policy6, get_local_in_policy6, and delete_local_in_policy6. It never names those siblings, but the verb makes the distinction unambiguous.

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 sentence 'Only the specified fields will be updated; other fields remain unchanged' establishes the partial-update semantics, so the usage is implied rather than spelled out. It never says when to choose this tool over create_local_in_policy6, or what is required first, such as an ADOM lock or a commit.

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