update_hotspot_operator

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies host and site identifier formats, but does not mention whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are needed, what side effects occur, or how invalid field values are handled. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 core action. The parameter explanations are direct and contain useful format details without extraneous content.

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 provides enough to attempt a call: target host, site, operator_id, and fields are explained. But because fields is an arbitrary object with only partial examples, and there is no guidance on update semantics, validation, or mutation consequences, the definition is not fully complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 compensate. It does add useful meaning: host can be a console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId; site can be a name or ID; operator_id is the operator identifier; fields is an object containing updatable fields like name, x_password, and note. However, the 'etc.' leaves the full set of accepted fields unspecified.

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 operation: 'Update a hotspot operator by ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_hotspot_operator, delete_hotspot_operator, and list_hotspot_operators, and the resource and method are both explicit.

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 implies this tool is for modifying an existing hotspot operator, especially by referencing operator_id and updateable fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over create_hotspot_operator or delete_hotspot_operator, nor does it mention any prerequisites or preconditions.

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