zones_update

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 discloses that this is a write operation and requires confirm and an environment variable. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or the optimistic locking mechanism involving the fingerprint parameter, which is a behavioral aspect.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the operation type, and each sentence adds essential information: what it does, prerequisites, and how to pass data. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or error handling. For an update tool, agents may need to know if the updated resource is returned. The description covers basic usage but lacks return and error context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that bodyJson should contain the full resource as a JSON string, which reinforces the schema. It does not add meaning to other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 '[WRITE] Update an existing GTM zone' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zones_create, zones_delete, and zones_read tools, as 'update' is unique among zones 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 explicitly states prerequisites: 'Requires GTM_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=true and confirm=true.' This tells the agent when the tool is usable. It implies it should be used for updating an existing zone, not for creating or deleting, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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