panelica_logs_put_v1_logs_logrotate_name

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Mutating: changes server state' (consistent with annotations) and required scopes (logs:write), which is useful. However, it does not disclose idempotency behavior beyond the annotation, nor what happens to existing settings. Minimal additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise—one summary line followed by essential metadata (HTTP, category, scopes, mutating flag). No redundant text. It is front-loaded, though it could have used a sentence to clarify the body format.

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 complexity of having an untyped body parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what fields to include in the request body, making correct invocation difficult. The description does not compensate for the missing schema information.

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 'name' parameter is clearly described as a path parameter. However, the 'body' parameter is defined only as 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs' in the schema, and the description itself gives no guidance on what the request body should contain. This is a significant gap for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update logrotate config'. The HTTP PUT method and path provide specificity. It is distinguishable from POST (create) and DELETE siblings through the verb, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 HTTP method and path imply this is for updating an existing logrotate config by name, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like POST /v1/logs/logrotate (create) or DELETE /v1/logs/logrotate/:name. No exclusions or alternative guidance are given.

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