update_wan_interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' and lists updatable fields, without mentioning permissions, impact on connectivity, reversibility, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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, using a concise sentence followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant text. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 is sparse for a mutating tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations. It lacks information about when to use this tool, potential prerequisites (e.g., must the WAN interface exist?), impact on network connectivity, and error behavior. Although an output schema exists, it is not described here, so the agent has incomplete context for a successful 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief explanation for each parameter: host, site, wan_id, and wan (fields to update). However, the 'wan' object's possible keys are only exemplified with 'etc.', leaving its true structure partially undefined. This adds value but does not fully clarify the parameter's full shape.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update a WAN interface configuration.' It is specific to WAN interfaces, distinguishing it from more general update tools like update_network. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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