vast42_update_mezzanine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'update' without indicating whether the update is partial (only supplied fields) or a full replacement, whether permissions are required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not earn its place beyond repeating the tool name, and it omits essential usage and behavior details. This is closer to the 'Process' example in under-specification than to a well-packed single sentence.

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 an update operation with no output schema, no annotations, and a simple schema, the description still fails to convey key behavioral context such as whether fields are optional, how partial updates work, or what the required 'id' implies. The description is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already states, and no extra context is needed for these straightforward fields.

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 mezzanine' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (VAST 4.2 mezzanine), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get mezzanine. However, it lacks any additional scope or elaboration beyond what the tool name already conveys, so it is clear but not richly informative.

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, no prerequisites, and no context for partial vs. full updates. It is a bare statement with no practical usage direction, so an agent would have no cues about the appropriate circumstances for invoking this tool.

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