update_nfregex_service_settings

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

The description discloses the restart side effect and the partial update behavior. However, with no annotations, it misses other important behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or response details. The output schema exists but is not described.

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?

Two short sentences, no redundant information. The critical effect ('causes restart') is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (5 parameters, output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain what each setting does, valid values, or what the tool returns. The missing guidance leaves gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description does not explain individual parameters (port, proto, ip_int, fail_open). It only implies that they are optional via 'Only provided fields are updated', which is insufficient for 5 parameters.

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 verb 'change', resource 'service settings', and includes a key side effect ('causes restart') and scope ('Only provided fields are updated'). The tool name also specifies which service type, distinguishing it from similar update tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_nfproxy_service_settings or when not to use it. The description lacks context for decision-making among sibling tools.

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