aap_update_host

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds the PATCH method and return format ('JSON with updated host id and name'), but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like required permissions, error handling, or whether omitted fields are left unchanged. This adds some value beyond annotations but not substantial context.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a docstring-style Args/Returns block. It front-loads the key information and contains no unnecessary words, though it could be slightly longer to include parameter explanations.

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?

The tool involves a nested input schema with five parameters, yet the description provides minimal context beyond the purpose. It does not explain parameter semantics, update behavior for omitted fields, or any prerequisites (e.g., that host_id must exist). The return value is specified, but overall the description is insufficient for confident, correct usage without additional schema documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'Fields to update' without listing or explaining the parameters (name, enabled, variables, description). The schema provides types and defaults but not meanings (e.g., that 'variables' as a string likely contains YAML/JSON), leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 the tool's action ('Update an existing AAP host (PATCH)'), identifies the resource (AAP host), and specifies the HTTP method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aap_create_host, aap_delete_host, and aap_list_hosts.

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 phrase 'existing AAP host' implies the tool is used for modifying an already-created host, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus aap_create_host or when not to use it. Alternatives are not mentioned, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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