pool_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., destructive nature, required permissions, side effects). It only implies mutation by stating 'Update', leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral aspects.

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 very short and gets to the point. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Still, it is not verbose.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters with low schema coverage, no annotations, and a nested object, the description should be more complete. It does not explain what can be updated, constraints, or how the output relates to the input. The presence of an output schema might help, but the description itself is lacking.

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%. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'rename', but does not explain the structure of the 'updates' object or the role of 'pool_id'. The agent would have to infer parameter semantics solely from names and schema types, which is insufficient.

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 it updates a resource pool and gives an example (rename), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pool_create and pool_delete. However, it could be more specific about what fields can be updated beyond rename.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description is too vague to help an agent decide between update and other pool operations.

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