lcm_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the operation is destructive, not undoable, tagged risk=high, requires audit tier 'review', and that the dry_run enforces the same precheck requirement. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 comprehensive and well-structured, starting with a clear summary, followed by behavioral notes, and an Args section. While every sentence adds value, it is slightly verbose but justified given the complexity and risk of the operation.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, dependency on lcm_precheck, and audit requirements, the description is highly complete. It covers preconditions, dry-run behavior, parameter sources, and safety notes. No output schema is needed for a mutation tool, and the description suffices for correct 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters. It adds meaning beyond schema types: e.g., how to obtain cluster_ext_id from cluster_list, entity_ext_ids from lcm_inventory, precheck_task_ext_id from lcm_precheck, and the purpose of dry_run and target.

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 starts with '[WRITE][risk=high] Perform an LCM firmware/software update', clearly specifying the verb ('update'), resource ('LCM firmware/software'), and risk level. It distinguishes from sibling 'lcm_precheck' by explicitly requiring a precheck task ID before proceeding.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: run lcm_precheck first and pass the returned taskExtId. It also explains that dry_run=True gives a preview without updating, and emphasizes that the update is refused without a successful precheck. It covers destructive nature, audit requirements, and optional parameters.

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