vast42_update_interactive_creative_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Update a VAST 4.2 interactive creative file'—which essentially restates the tool name—offering no details on side effects, partial vs. full updates, or error handling.

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, short sentence with no fluff, making it concise and front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity leaves no room for additional context.

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 tool is a simple update with 3 fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adds no context about update semantics, optionality of fields, or failure behavior, leaving the agent with uncertainty about standard update behavior.

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 id, name, and mime_type already described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 'Update a VAST 4.2 interactive creative file' uses a specific verb (Update) and resource (VAST 4.2 interactive creative file), clearly distinguishing it from sibling create/delete/get tools. It lacks detail about what an update entails but is not a tautology.

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 like vast42_create_interactive_creative_file or vast42_delete_interactive_creative_file. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context about the update process are given.

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