network_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that password is required when changing hostUri, but does not disclose that hostUri triggers reconnection, that info is a full replacement, or any side effects, permissions, or idempotency considerations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with two short sentences and no filler. The first sentence states the core action and the second adds a critical conditional requirement.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits the reconnection behavior of hostUri, the full-replacement semantics of info, and any return or error information, leaving important context to be inferred.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including the hostUri/password relationship. The description merely repeats that condition and adds no additional semantic value beyond what the input schema provides.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Update a network'), which is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling tools like network_create and network_delete. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not specify which fields are updatable, leaving that to the 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?

The description provides almost no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as network_create or network_get. The only usage hint is the password condition when changing hostUri, which is a prerequisite rather than a selection guideline.

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