update_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses the file path, partial-update semantics, automatic addition of new hosts, the exact return message, and the only error condition (invalid host name characters). This is unusually complete.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose and location, partial-update mechanics, auto-add behavior, return value and error condition. No redundant or filler text.

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 simple three-parameter metadata tool with no output schema need, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, where it writes, partial updates, creation, return value, and validation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema by clarifying that omitted description/os fields keep their current values and that host acts as the lookup key, with new hosts auto-added. This elevates the value.

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 a specific verb ('Record or update') and resource ('metadata for a host in the sudo-proxy registry'), and explains where the registry lives. This distinguishes it from sibling server-control tools like start_server, stop_server, and status.

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 context for when to use this tool is clear: it is for adding or updating host metadata entries, not for controlling server execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names and the registry-specific phrasing make the intended usage obvious.

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