vast_update_tracking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Update' indicating mutation, but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether fields can be cleared, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool with no annotation support.

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 wasted words. It clearly conveys the core operation in six words, earning its place.

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 simple update operation with fully documented parameters, the description might suffice, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps about expected return values or failure conditions. Given the large sibling toolset, some additional context about the scope of updates would improve 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% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the schema already explains id, url, name, and event. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'existing' requires an id, which is already marked as required in the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('VAST tracking entry'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vast_create_tracking and vast_delete_tracking. It also implies the target exists, which separates it from creation operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vast_create_tracking or vast_update_channel_zone_assignment. It only implies that the entry must already exist, but does not state prerequisites or scenarios where update is appropriate.

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