update_bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses a read-before/no-op/read-after pattern, states 'No write when all match', and mentions the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED governance. This goes beyond a generic 'update' and gives meaningful behavioral expectations.

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 well-structured, using line breaks per parameter. Every sentence adds value: endpoint, parameter explanations, id acquisition, and mutation governance are all included without fluff.

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?

All three parameters are meaningfully explained, and the output schema exists so return values need not be described. The main gaps are minor: behavior when UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED is false and error handling are not specified, but the tool is still fully invokable.

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 fully document parameters. It explains host as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', bridge_id as REQUIRED and obtainable from list_bridges, and settings as 'fields to change' with idempotence behavior. This is comprehensive parameter 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 'Update bridge settings' and gives the exact endpoint PATCH /v1/bridges/{id}, making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling getters and other update_* tools by naming 'bridge' as the resource.

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?

It provides useful context: obtain bridge_id from list_bridges, and notes that writes are governed by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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