update-planner-bucket

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the crucial behavioral requirement of the If-Match header for optimistic concurrency, which is not conveyed by annotations. It does not contradict any annotations, and the ETag prerequisite is valuable for correct invocation.

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 extremely concise: one action sentence and a critical tip. The tip is front-loaded and clearly highlights the most important operational detail. No unnecessary words, and the use of emoji is decorative but does not hinder clarity.

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 tool with nested objects, 6 parameters, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the ETag requirement, which is essential, but does not explain whether the body replaces the whole bucket or is a partial update, nor what the response contains. The schema provides some context, but the description could add update semantics and expected return behavior. The lack of this info leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 83%, so most parameters are described. The description enriches two parameters: If-Match (explicitly tied to the ETag from get-planner-bucket) and includeHeaders (mentioned as the means to obtain that ETag). This goes beyond the schema's generic 'ETag value' and 'Include response headers' descriptions.

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 'Update the properties of plannerbucket object', specifying the verb 'update' and the resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create-planner-bucket and delete-planner-bucket by the action, and from get-planner-bucket by the mutation intent.

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 a critical usage guideline: it requires an If-Match header with an ETag from get-planner-bucket and tells the agent to use includeHeaders=true. This is practical, action-oriented guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, though the name and context imply it is for updating an existing bucket rather than creating or deleting.

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