update_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether this is a full replace or a partial merge, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether it is idempotent, or what permissions/VDOM scoping apply. The schema's 'extra' bag (arbitrary attributes merged into the request body) hints at merge semantics, but the description never confirms or explains this.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it is not bloated. It is arguably over-terse for a mutation tool with a nested 'extra' object, but on the conciseness axis it earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form 'extra' object, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks any information about update semantics, error behavior, or VDOM handling that the structured fields do not supply.

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 100%, so every parameter (fqdn, subnet, start_ip/end_ip, comment, vdom, extra) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a firewall address object'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling read/write variants like create_address, delete_address, and get_address. It stops short of naming the object type's scope (firewall address object on a FortiGate VDOM) or what 'update' covers, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_address, delete_address, or update_address_group, and no stated prerequisites such as the object needing to exist or a VDOM context being required. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name alone.

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