update-planner-bucket

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context about the ETag requirement, which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise: two sentences and a tip. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence provides value. No wasted words.

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 (nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the ETag prerequisite but does not explain the response behavior or what happens on success/failure. The schema includes parameters like excludeResponse that could affect the output, but the description does not address them.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds value for the If-Match parameter by explaining its source (ETag from get-planner-bucket). It does not detail body fields, but the schema already covers them.

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 'Update the properties of plannerbucket object', which conveys the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create-planner-bucket or delete-planner-bucket, though the name and context make it clear.

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 provides critical usage guidance: the requirement for an If-Match header with an ETag from get-planner-bucket. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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