update_link_station

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful behavior: 'read/no-op/read-after' signals a check-before-write flow, 'No write when all match' discloses idempotent behavior, and 'Governed by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED' hints at environment-controlled mutation capability. It does not detail error cases or permission requirements, but it goes well beyond a bare 'update' statement.

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 terse and front-loads the core action, followed by parameter notes and behavioral caveats. Every line earns its place, with no filler. The phrase 'read/no-op/read-after' is slightly cryptic but compact, and the line-break structure aids scanning.

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 PATCH tool with an output schema, the description covers the required parameters, the mutation gate flag, and the no-op behavior. It does not explain the output structure, but that is less critical because an output schema exists. The main missing piece is clearer guidance on what happens when UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED is not set, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 explains host formats ('console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)'), tells the agent where to get link_station_id ('from list_link_stations'), and clarifies settings as 'fields to change'. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw schema, though actual field examples for settings would make it even stronger.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Update link-station settings (PATCH /v1/link-stations/{id})'. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the read-only siblings list_link_stations and get_link_station. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with the sibling read tools, but the verb and endpoint make the purpose unambiguous.

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 useful invocation guidance: where to obtain link_station_id, what settings means, and the no-op condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion conditions such as 'do not use when mutations are disabled'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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