lattice_update_backup_destination

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes that config replacement does not merge, which is a critical detail. However, it does not clarify effects on other fields (name, type, active) or whether updates are idempotent. The term 'whole object' is ambiguous regarding scope.

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 concise with two short sentences. The first states the purpose, the second adds a key behavioral detail. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could be slightly clearer about the scope of 'whole object.'

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?

Given 5 parameters, nested config, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the update effect on name/type/active, return values, idempotency, or errors. For a CRUD update tool, much more context is needed.

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 coverage is low (40%), so the description should compensate. It adds meaning for the config parameter ('replaces whole object, not merge'), but ignores the undocumented parameters (name, type, active). Users lack guidance on updating these fields, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Update a backup destination,' which identifies the operation and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, list, and test by focusing on modification. The additional note about config replacement further clarifies the specific update behavior.

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 implies usage when modifying an existing backup destination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create or delete. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used. The config replacement hint provides limited guidance.

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