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

The description adds the important behavioral detail that only provided fields are changed (partial update), which complements the destructiveHint annotation. It also notes the live instance aspect, implying no restart is needed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences convey purpose, behavior, and API endpoint without waste. Front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

The tool is simple enough with schema and annotations covering the essentials. The description provides the key semantic (partial update) and endpoint context. No output schema exists, but that is not a critical gap for an update tool. It could mention response format, but overall it is complete for selection and invocation.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are changed, which is crucial for understanding id, name, and tags behavior, especially the partial-update semantics for name and tags.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a live instance's name and/or tags'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch, terminate, or restart. The specific fields are mentioned, 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?

The description implies usage context: updating name/tags on an existing instance, and notes that only provided fields are changed. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like launch or restart, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for modification tasks.

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