zadig_build_update_from_template

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully states the default dry_run=true and the need for confirm=true, giving some safety-related context. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens during a dry run versus a confirmed update.

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 two short, focused sentences with no filler. The action and the two critical behavioral defaults are front-loaded and immediately scannable.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves important context missing: what target_services should contain, how template_name relates to the build, the role of project_key, and expected behavior on success or failure. The output schema helps but cannot replace the missing operational semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters. It clarifies the behavior of dry_run and confirm, but leaves build_name, template_name, target_services, and project_key effectively unexplained, especially the structure and role of target_services.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('a build created from a build template'), which distinguishes it from generic build update or template update tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against sibling tools like zadig_build_update or zadig_build_template_update.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zadig_build_update or zadig_build_template_update. It implies the target case (builds created from templates) but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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