ecp_system_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a mutating operation, requires the current password, and warns about account-wide impact. Still, it does not clarify side effects, whether changes are reversible, or what exactly 'account-wide impact' means in practice.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation, names the affected fields, and adds the critical password prerequisite and account-wide warning without redundancy.

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 security-sensitive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema property descriptions, the description provides a reasonable minimum: what it updates, what is required, and a caution. However, the unexplained confirm field and lack of clarity about which fields can be combined leave gaps for an agent trying to invoke it safely and correctly.

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. It adds meaning to hosting_environment, hosting_version, and ecp_password, but it never explains the required confirm parameter or its const-true semantics. It also does not give any value format or constraint hints for the hosting fields.

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 names a specific action ('Update') and specific targets: account/hosting settings (hosting_environment, hosting_version) and the ECP password. It is not a tautology and is fairly distinguishable from the many sibling tools by naming its exact fields, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with ecp_system_set_config or the various password tools.

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 gives useful preconditions: the account's own current password is required and the change has account-wide impact. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ecp_system_set_config, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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