update_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one critical hazard: modifying connection-related fields can sever API access. However, it says nothing about partial-update semantics, whether omitted fields are preserved, permissions required, or reversibility.

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 sentences, tightly front-loaded with the action and followed by the one piece of genuinely non-obvious information. 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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key risk but leaves partial-update behavior, the 'extra' merge semantics, and vdom interaction to the schema alone. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool this consequential.

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 the schema already documents all ten parameters with formats and enum-like values. The description names only three fields (ip, mode, allowaccess) for the risk warning, adding no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Update an interface'), clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_address or update_firewall_policy. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate from create/delete interface operations beyond the verb.

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 when caution is warranted (changing IP/mode/allowaccess risks cutting off API access), but it never states when to use this tool versus get_interface/list_interfaces or what prerequisites exist. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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