Update client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the target must be a registered device and that the mutable fields are name and IP; it says nothing beyond annotations about reversibility, what overwriting an existing IP does, or auth needs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, mutable fields, and target scope all appear immediately.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, annotations cover safety and the schema covers all three params. The description is nonetheless thin: it omits what identifying key is used (mac), whether both fields can be updated together, and any effect on existing configuration.

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 mac, ip, and name with an example format. The description restates the mutable fields but adds no format, constraint, or optionality 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?

States a specific verb (update) plus the exact fields (name, static IP) and the target (a registered device), which separates it from siblings like register_client, block_client, and remove_dhcp_host. It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the word 'registered' that this is for already-registered clients rather than register_client, and nothing states prerequisites such as the device existing.

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