vast_update_ad_item

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 restates the verb 'update' without explaining side effects, partial update semantics, whether omitted fields are cleared, required permissions, or return behavior. This is a minimal mutation tool description with zero behavioral context.

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 filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple update operation, though it could include a brief usage note without losing efficiency.

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 simple (4 params, 1 required) and the schema covers parameters, but the description lacks context about update semantics, return values, or when to use it. With no annotations and many sibling update tools, an agent would have difficulty distinguishing behavior and consequences without external knowledge. This falls below the minimum viable bar for 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (id, name, active, location). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the resource name, but the schema does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline of 3.

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 ('existing VAST ad item'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'vast_create_ad_item', 'vast_delete_ad_item', and 'vast_get_ad_item'. It clearly states the operation and object.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vast_create_ad_item' or 'vast_update_linear_media'. The description gives no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent receives no decision support.

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