ise_ers_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies this as a mutating PUT operation, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose whether it's destructive to unspecified fields (a full PUT replacing the object could overwrite fields not present in the payload), whether it requires specific privileges, what happens on partial payloads, or what the response looks like. For a full-update mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, tightly written, with the key operation (full PUT by ID) front-loaded. The second sentence instructs the payload requirement. There's no wasted prose, though it could arguably add a bit more guidance on which fields are required without bloating.

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 no output schema, this is a moderately complex operation (4 params, nested data object, large resource enum). The description covers the essential behavioral trait (full PUT = complete payload) but omits the response format, error behavior, and prerequisites. The resource enum at 60+ options creates ambiguity that the sibling ise_ers_resources tool helps with, but the description doesn't clarify which resources actually support PUT vs only GET. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50% with 4 parameters total. The resource parameter is documented in the schema enum description ('Use ise_ers_resources to see all with their supported operations') and the deployment parameter has a helpful schema description. However, 'id' and 'data' parameters have no inline description in the schema and the tool description adds only 'Provide the complete JSON payload' which clarifies that 'data' must be the full object. The description meaningfully conveys that data must be complete for PUT semantics, adding value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Full update (PUT) of an existing ERS object by ID' with a clear verb (update/PUT), resource (ERS object), and method (by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like ise_ers_create (create), ise_ers_patch (partial update), and ise_ers_delete. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from patch, but the PUT vs PATCH distinction is implied by 'Full update'.

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't explain when a full PUT is preferred over patch (ise_ers_patch) or create (ise_ers_create), and doesn't mention prerequisites like whether the object must already exist or how to obtain the ID. The 'Provide the complete JSON payload' hint is a requirement but not a usage guideline.

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