update_alarm_hub

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a read-before/no-op/read-after pattern and states that no write occurs when all fields match, plus the governing environment variable UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED. This gives agents a realistic model of the tool's side effects, though it lacks explicit permission or rollback details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation and pattern, then breaks into a tight parameter list. No wasted words; all sentences contribute essential information for correct invocation.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and an output schema, the definition covers the essential operational context (parameters, behavior, guarded by env var). It could add notes on permissions or side effects, but the read-before/no-op pattern already mitigates the main risks, making it sufficient for safe usage.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: host formats (name, ID, composite ID), alarm_hub_id provenance via list_alarm_hubs, and settings as fields to change. This transforms an opaque schema into actionable semantics.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update alarm-hub settings' with the specific HTTP method, naming the resource and operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_alarm_hubs and get_alarm_hub by implying a mutation action on an existing alarm hub.

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?

Provides clear guidance on how to obtain required parameters (alarm_hub_id from list_alarm_hubs) and explains the update behavior (fields to change, no-op when matching). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the resource-specific nature makes that less critical.

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