remnawave_update_internal_squad

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

The description discloses the mutation impact on production and the replacement behavior of the 'inbounds' parameter. This adds significant context beyond annotations, which already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent traits. No contradictions.

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 consists of two concise sentences. It front-loads the mutation warning and immediately clarifies the core behavior of the inbounds parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description covers the key aspects: mutation, inbound replacement, and a hint to retrieve current UUIDs. It does not explicitly mention that the name parameter is optional, but the schema covers that. Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (name, uuid, inbounds), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the critical point that inbounds replaces the full set, adding practical emphasis. This adds value beyond the 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 the tool updates an internal squad, specifying that it mutates production and changes which inbounds members get. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools, but the domain-specific detail (inbound replacement) provides sufficient context.

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 warns about mutation ('MUTATES PROD') and explains that the 'inbounds' parameter replaces the full set, referencing a sibling tool ('remnawave_list_internal_squads') to obtain current UUIDs. It does not list alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is adequate.

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