update_bridge_vlan

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: empty string clears port lists, dynamic PVID-derived entries are rejected, and the change is read back and confirmed on the device before success is reported, which implies failure modes and added latency. It still does not say what happens to fields omitted from the call (left unchanged vs. reset), which is the key ambiguity for an update tool.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and the remaining detail is scoped into short labeled bullets, so an agent can scan for the parameter it is confused about. Some bullets (tagged/untagged) are terse enough to be borderline cryptic, but nothing is redundant padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the read-back verification sentence is enough without enumerating return fields, and the destructive/idempotent profile is carried by annotations. The remaining gap is moderate: for an 8-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, leaving new_vlan_ids and the omit-vs-clear semantics of comment/disabled unexplained is a real hole.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it only covers two of them. The vlan_ids matching rule and the tagged/untagged comma-separated format plus the "" clearing convention are well explained, but new_vlan_ids — the parameter that appears to allow retargeting the VLAN ID and is the riskiest one — is never mentioned, nor are bridge, device, comment, or disabled.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Updates an existing bridge VLAN table entry"), which cleanly separates it from the add/list/remove bridge-VLAN siblings by name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with add_bridge_vlan or note that the entry must already exist as a distinct alternative to creating one, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 notes establish meaningful preconditions: the entry must already exist, vlan_ids must match the stored value exactly (with a concrete example of why "150" fails against "100-199"), and D-flag entries auto-created from PVIDs cannot be updated at all. That last point is an explicit when-not condition, but the description never names the correct sibling (add_bridge_vlan) for the case where an entry doesn't exist yet.

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