vast42_update_companion

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses no behavioral traits: whether the update is partial or full, whether the companion must exist, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements. The text is merely a restatement of the tool's name.

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, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified and essentially repeats the tool name ('Update a VAST 4.2 companion' → vast42_update_companion), adding no additional value. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it omits critical context for a useful description.

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, the description should describe return values, error behavior, or prerequisites. It does none of these, leaving the agent with minimal context beyond 'update companion'. This is insufficient for confident invocation in diverse scenarios.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters (id, name, width, height), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a VAST 4.2 companion'), with '4.2' clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'vast_update_companion' (without 4.2). This makes the tool's function immediately clear and differentiates it from create/delete companion variants.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vast42_create_companion or vast42_delete_companion, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and sibling context.

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