update_hda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at mutation ('Update') but does not reveal whether this overwrites existing definitions, requires specific permissions, affects the current HDA, or has side effects. The risk of modifying an HDA definition is not addressed.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and source clearly in 9 words, making it easy to parse and appropriately sized.

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?

This is a one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, yet the description provides minimal context. It lacks information about when to use it, side effects, required context, or expected outcome, leaving the agent underinformed 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 only one parameter, node_path, but the description does not mention it directly. The phrase 'from its current node contents' implies that the node_path refers to a Houdini node, offering some context, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's role or format. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to fully compensate.

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 target ('an HDA definition'), and specifies the source ('its current node contents'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that create, install, or delete HDAs, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hda_create or hda_install, nor any context about prerequisites or consequences. The description only states what it does, with no situational use cases or exclusions.

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