update_volume

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 states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (mutation tool with 3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects), parameter details (especially the required 'id'), and doesn't address what the tool returns or how to handle errors. For a tool that modifies resources, this level of brevity leaves too many 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'name, labels' which maps to two of the three parameters (name, labels), but doesn't explain the required 'id' parameter or provide any semantic context beyond naming the fields. The description adds minimal value over the schema, failing to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('a volume'), and specifies what can be updated ('name, labels'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_volume' or 'delete_volume' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'update_' tools (e.g., update_server, update_network) beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing volume ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating vs. updating), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_volume' or 'list_volumes' for context. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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