host_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without specifying whether the ipList replaces existing addresses, whether it is additive, or what side effects occur (e.g., DNS propagation). This leaves the mutation's behavior largely opaque.

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 a single, concise sentence that is easily parsed and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, and every word contributes to stating the core purpose.

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 tool is a mutation with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description is still too sparse. It fails to explain whether the update is cumulative or replacing, what constitutes a valid host, or any error conditions. For an agent to safely invoke it, more context is needed.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (host, ipList) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('IP addresses of a nameserver host'), making it distinct from sibling host tools like host_create, host_delete, or host_list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, relying on the IP address specificity for 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no conditions for when to use host_update versus host_create or host_delete, nor any prerequisites or potential alternatives.

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