update_relay

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the PATCH method, the read-before/no-op/read-after behavior, the no-write-when-all-match rule, and the UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED guard. It stops short of describing failure behavior, but this is meaningful operational detail beyond the schema.

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: the operation and endpoint come first, followed by a concise parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 no annotations and a minimal schema, the description provides endpoint, parameter semantics, no-op behavior, and the mutation-enabled guard. It does not enumerate valid settings fields or explain the exact error behavior when mutations are disabled, but the output schema exists and the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the sole source of parameter meaning and compensates fully. It documents host formats including composite MAC:numericId, explains that relay_id must come from list_relays, and clarifies that settings are the fields to change with a no-write condition when all values already match.

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 a specific verb and resource—'Update relay settings'—and includes the exact endpoint (PATCH /v1/relays/{id}), which clearly separates it from sibling tools such as list_relays, get_relay, and relay_activate_output without needing schema inspection.

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 clearly establishes the tool's purpose for changing relay settings and gives practical guidance, such as obtaining relay_id from list_relays and using the correct host format. It does not explicitly name alternatives like relay_activate_output or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusionary guidance but still provides clear context.

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