zones_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write nature, required env var, and confirm parameter, but omits details like full replacement semantics, optimistic locking via fingerprint, error handling, or rate limits. Basic but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the action, no redundant words. Efficient for a minimal viable description, though it could benefit from listing requirements in a structured manner.

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?

Given 7 parameters, required flags, and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and prerequisites but neglects details like fingerprint usage, partial vs full update, and concurrency concerns. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 parameter descriptions cover all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds only 'Pass the full resource as a JSON string' for bodyJson, which repeats the schema. Minor reinforcement but no new meaning beyond schema.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing GTM zone', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zones_create, zones_delete, etc., by specifying 'Update' and not overlapping with other zone operations.

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 to use (update an existing zone) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create or revert. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving it to the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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