update_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: network_config replaces the entire network configuration rather than patching it. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects on connected devices, leaving notable gaps for a mutating tool.

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 primary purpose, followed by concise parameter guidance. Every line earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 four-parameter mutating tool with an output schema and a nested object, the description covers requiredness, identifier sources, and full-replacement semantics. It could still guide the agent on constructing or fetching the full network_config, but the essentials for calling the tool correctly are present.

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 by explaining the allowed identifier formats for host, site, and the provenance of network_id. network_config is only described as 'full network configuration to replace with,' so the internal structure of that object remains underspecified.

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 opens with 'Update an existing network/VLAN,' which states a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes the tool from list_networks, get_network, create_network, and delete_network. It reinforces the update semantics by requiring network_id to reference an existing network obtained via list_networks.

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 explicitly marks network_id as REQUIRED and tells the agent to obtain it from list_networks's id field. It also clarifies that network_config is a full replacement, implying the agent should fetch the current configuration first if any modification is intended. It does not explicitly rule out create/delete alternatives, but the update-focused context is clear.

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