update_dhcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: vci_match=true silently ignores ordinary clients and defaults to FortiSwitch/FortiExtender vendor classes. However, for a mutation tool it omits whether updates are partial or full-replace, permission requirements, and any response/error semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat following. The warning is dense but earns its place; nothing 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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and one behavioral gotcha but leaves patch-vs-replace semantics, permissions, and failure modes unaddressed. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema for vci_match by explaining the silent-ignore consequence and the FortiOS vendor-class defaults, effectively giving the vci-string semantics the schema omits.

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+resource ("Update a DHCP server"), which is unambiguous against siblings like list_dhcp_servers and add_dhcp_reservation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, and no update sibling is called out, so it stops short of the top score.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites such as required server_id or permissions. The vci_match note is a caveat about behavior, not usage routing, so guidance is essentially absent.

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