update_nfproxy_service_settings

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

The description discloses that changing settings causes a restart, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it lacks other behavioral details such as immediate effect, error handling on invalid service_id, or whether changes are reversible. The restart warning is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a critical side effect. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. A slightly more detailed description could include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation with 4 parameters (1 required) and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what each parameter does, when to use optional params, or any constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to provide sufficient guidance 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'settings' without explaining specific parameters (service_id, port, ip_int, fail_open). No format, constraints, or defaults are described, leaving the agent to infer solely from the schema, which has placeholder titles. This is inadequate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Change', the resource 'settings of an existing nfproxy service', and a side effect 'causes restart'. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_nfproxy_service (create) or delete_nfproxy_service (remove).

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 implies usage when modifying nfproxy service settings and accepting a restart, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives (e.g., delete and recreate). No direct guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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