komodo_update_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether config is a full replacement or a merge, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the build must be stopped first, or what errors can occur — all critical for a nested-dict mutation.

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 content is brief and front-loads the purpose, but the Args/Returns scaffolding is boilerplate and the return line is wasted because an output schema already exists. Half the text repeats structured data.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, a free-form nested config object, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin — it gives no key inventory, merge semantics, or safety context. The presence of an output schema only excuses the return-value omission, which the description nonetheless includes.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter names ('Build ID', 'Updated build configuration dictionary'). The config object has additionalProperties=true and is nested, yet no valid keys, required subfields, or format are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing build'), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/get build siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other komodo_update_* tools or clarify what can be updated.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this replaces the whole build config, when it should be called instead of delete+create, or what prerequisites/permissions apply. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.

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