update_placement

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation modifies an existing placement, but does not discuss partial-update semantics, authorization requirements, effects on active delivery, or reversibility.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and clearly states the core function, though it is somewhat terse and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (19 parameters, nested objects, enums, multiple update variants) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to clarify which fields are mutually exclusive (e.g., zone vs. channel) or what the update behavior is, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 100%, with every parameter having a meaningful description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides rich semantics, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing placement'), making it obvious the tool modifies a placement. However, it does not distinguish between the several placement update variants in the sibling list (e.g., vast_update_placement, draft_update_placement), so differentiation is lacking.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies 'use when updating a placement,' but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling update tools.

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