Update dev resources

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the HTTP method (PUT) and the required scope, providing useful context. But it does not disclose possible edge behavior such as whether a PUT request overwrites both fields, what happens when the id is unknown, or any side effects beyond the direct update.

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 sentence that front-loads the endpoint and action, lists the affected fields, and ends with the scope. There is no filler or redundancy; every piece of information adds value.

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?

For a simple three-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details: what is being updated, by what id, and with what permission. It lacks guidance on whether a partial update is allowed, error responses, or success indicators, which are relevant for a write operation but not strictly blocking 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?

Schema description coverage is low (33%), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'name/url' are the updatable fields and 'id' is the resource identifier. However, it does not explain whether name/url are optional, if a full replacement is expected (PUT semantics), or the expected format of the url. This is partial but not complete compensation for the 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 a specific verb ('update'), a specific resource ('dev_resources'), what fields can be updated ('name/url'), and the key mechanism ('by dev resource id'). This naturally distinguishes it from the sibling tools create_dev_resources and delete_dev_resource, as well as the read-only get_dev_resources.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool to update an existing dev resource's name/url identified by its id. It also provides a scope requirement (file_dev_resources:write). It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names and the update-specific wording make the intended usage fairly unambiguous.

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