update_fob

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

Discloses non-obvious behaviors: read-before/no-op/read-after semantics, the no-write-on-match condition, and the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED gate. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well, though it could mention return values or permission requirements.

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-loads the core purpose and endpoint before breaking down parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and nested objects, the description covers all needed context: parameter formats, where to get required IDs, behavioral quirks, and a safety gate. An output schema exists to cover return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: host formats (name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId), fob_id source, and settings behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and resource 'fob settings', and even includes the REST endpoint (PATCH /v1/fobs/{id}). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_fobs and get_fob, which are read operations.

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 concrete usage context: how to obtain fob_id (from list_fobs), the meaning of settings, and the no-op condition ('No write when all match'). It also mentions the environment variable governing mutations. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool comparisons, so it misses a perfect score.

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