Update Platform

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

The description clarifies the PATCH semantics beyond the annotations, explaining that only provided fields change. It also describes the return format options, which is behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any required permissions or limitations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary information.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and output format, but lacks details on error cases, prerequisites (platform existence), and specifics on complex parameters like manufacturer and config_template. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, additional completeness would help.

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?

With only 44% schema description coverage, many parameters lack definitions. The description does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings or constraints beyond stating to supply fields to change, which does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 existing platform using PATCH semantics, specifying that only provided fields change. This differentiates it from create, get, and delete operations, which are present among siblings.

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 instructs to provide only fields to change, implying partial updates. It implicitly differentiates from creation by requiring an existing id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for full replacement).

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