aws_resource_update

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

The description discloses that the operation is async by default, returns a ProgressEvent with OperationStatus=IN_PROGRESS and requestToken, and offers awaitCompletion. It explains polling via get-resource-request-status and mentions defaults for timeout and poll intervals. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral details without contradiction.

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 concise at two sentences plus an example patch. It front-loads the core purpose and async behavior. The structure is clear, though a brief note on the return type could improve completeness without adding much length.

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 tool's 10 parameters, async mechanics, and patch complexity, the description covers the key aspects: update via CCAPI, async defaults, awaitCompletion option, and patch format. It does not detail error handling or the structure of ProgressEvent, but the reference to get-resource-request-status and mention of final statuses (SUCCESS/FAILED/CANCEL_COMPLETE) provide sufficient context.

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 100% with each parameter described in the schema, but the description adds value by providing a concrete patch example ('[{op: "replace", path: "/MemorySize", value: 512}]') and clarifying the behavior of awaitCompletion, timeoutMs, pollIntervalMs, and maxWaitMs with their defaults and ranges.

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 tool updates an AWS resource via Cloud Control API using RFC 6902 JSON Patch. It specifies the verb 'update', the target 'AWS resource', and the method 'Cloud Control API' with 'JSON Patch', distinguishing it from siblings like create, delete, get, list, and status.

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 guidance on async behavior, the awaitCompletion parameter, and references aws_resource_status for polling. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives like aws_call or aws_resource_diff, nor does it mention prerequisites or context where CCAPI might not be applicable.

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