Update a fleet

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-read mutation. The description adds nothing beyond 'update', which is already implied by the name. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether partial updates are supported. Given that annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description still fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, lacking any detail that would make it useful. It is not verbose, but it fails to convey necessary information.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, only id is required, and there is no output schema. The description provides no guidance on parameter usage, expected behavior, or return values. For a mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output documentation, this description is grossly inadequate. An agent would not know what fields to populate or what the response contains.

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 only 17% (only tagRules has a description). The description provides no explanation for parameters like id, name, color, or description. With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not. An agent cannot determine what each parameter does or which ones are optional beyond the schema's structural hints.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as termix_fleets_create_fleet or termix_fleets_list_current_users_fleets. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that updating is for modifying an existing fleet.

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