vast42_update_resource

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a VAST 4.2 resource' and provides no information about side effects, required fields beyond id (which is in schema), reversibility, permissions, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 redundant words. It efficiently states the core purpose but is minimal to the point of omitting potentially useful context. It is concise and well-structured, though not overly informative.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a three-word description, the context is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'resource' is, what fields can be updated, or any behavioral implications. The sibling list includes many similar tools, and this description does not help an agent understand the tool's role within that ecosystem.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (id, name, type), with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as constraints, whether fields are optional, or how partial updates behave. Since the schema already covers the parameters, a baseline score 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 target ('a VAST 4.2 resource'), which distinguishes it from create/delete/get operations. However, 'resource' is a generic term and does not differentiate among the many VAST 4.2 update siblings (e.g., vast42_update_ad, vast42_update_placement), so it lacks specificity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying an existing resource, nor does it reference any related tools like vast42_create_resource or vast42_delete_resource. The description is purely a statement of action with no contextual direction.

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