cloud_insts_upd

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the rename is synchronous, any side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., instance state). The note only covers parameter resolution, not runtime behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose and organized with parameter list and note. It is concise for 8 parameters, though the note is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

Given complexity (8 params, no output schema), the description explains parameter resolution but omits return value, error scenarios, and side effects. It provides enough for basic usage but leaves gaps for robust agent decision-making.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds context for 'project_id' and 'region_id' (use numeric IDs, resolve names). Other parameters get minimal explanations ('Name.', 'Send extra headers', etc.). Some ambiguity remains (e.g., 'name' could be current or new name). Partial compensation for schema gaps.

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 'Rename instance', identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cloud_insts_resz' (resize) and 'cloud_insts_del' (delete). However, it could be more explicit that this tool only handles renaming, not other updates.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about resolving project/region IDs is technical, not usage context. Sibling tools imply different operations, but the description does not clarify when to prefer this tool over them.

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