update_tier1_gateway

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

Annotations already provide read/write and destructive hints (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds critical context: PATCH semantics (only fields passed change), route_advertisement whole-list replacement behavior, 'Re-applying identical values is harmless', and the return format including error hint. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits, which is acceptable for this context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: usage guidance, behavior, and parameter details. The structured Args section is easy to scan. Despite its length, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly states 'Returns the updated gateway dict, else {"error", "hint"}'. It covers all parameters, usage context, and behavioral nuance. Complete for a 5-parameter update tool with 1 required param.

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 carries full burden. It explains every parameter in the Args section, including tier1_id, display_name, tier0_path with an example, route_advertisement with the full list of enum values, and target with default. This is comprehensive and adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Partially update an existing Tier-1 gateway via PATCH', specifying the verb, resource, and HTTP method. It differentiates from 'create_tier1_gateway' (PUT, overwrites) and 'delete_tier1_gateway', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use get_tier1_gateway first' as a prerequisite, and 'Prefer this over create_tier1_gateway for an existing gateway' with the reason that create is a PUT and overwrites. Also warns about route_advertisement being sent as a whole list, telling users to include all types they want kept. This fully addresses when and how to use the tool.

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