vast42_update_icon_click_fallback_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without explaining whether this is a partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, required permissions, or potential side effects. No information is given about error behavior or idempotency.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and it is appropriately concise for a simple CRUD update tool.

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?

Though the schema fully documents parameters, the description lacks critical context for an agent: no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral or usage details. For a mutation tool, it should clarify update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), and what happens if the id is invalid. The description is insufficient for full contextual completeness.

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 all four properties (id, name, width, height) having type and description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource ('VAST 4.2 icon click fallback image'). This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools like vast42_create_icon_click_fallback_image, vast42_delete_icon_click_fallback_image, etc. The verb+resource combination is explicit and unambiguous.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with related update tools (e.g., vast42_update_icon). For a CRUD tool, usage context is implied by the 'update' verb, but that is not articulated in the description.

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