komodo_update_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic operation and that it returns updated stack information. It does not describe permission requirements, whether the update is partial or full, how unspecified fields are handled, or any side effects.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, using a standard Args/Returns structure. The Returns section is redundant given the presence of an output schema, but the overall text is efficient.

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 and a nested object parameter, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain the config structure, update semantics, or any behavioral details needed to invoke the tool correctly, despite the output schema covering return values.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter names ('id: Stack ID', 'config: Updated stack configuration dictionary') without adding meaning beyond the schema types. It does not explain what keys the config object accepts or whether the update merges or replaces existing configuration.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing stack'), so an agent can tell it apart from create_stack, delete_stack, and get_stack. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling update tools for deployments, builds, or servers beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites for updating a stack, and no conditions under which it should not be used. It only states the operation, leaving context entirely to inference.

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