Update trunk IP ACL entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds value beyond them: it explains the actual consequence ('Traffic from the old address stops being trusted') and the environment/confirmation gate. This tells the agent what is destroyed and what authorization is needed, which annotations alone do not.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the replace semantics, then the required-field rule, the destructive consequence, and the gate. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 destructive, gated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the mandatory parameters, the side effect on old-address trust, and the confirmation/environment prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 75%, with name, confirm and ip_address already documented in the schema (including the 'resend the current one to keep it' note the description echoes). The description adds no new syntax or format detail, and ip_acl_id remains undocumented in both places, so the schema carries most of the burden.

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?

States a specific verb (Replace) and resource (Vobiz IP ACL entry) plus the exact fields affected (label and address). An agent can immediately separate this from add_ip_acl_entry, delete_ip_acl_entry, and list_ip_acl_entries without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance: both name and ip_address are required on every call, and the caller must resend the current value of the field being kept. It also names the gating conditions (VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING and confirm: true). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over a delete-plus-add alternative, so not a full 5.

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