lattice_update_worker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not clarify whether it performs a partial update or full replace, what validation occurs, authorization requirements, or potential side effects like downtime. This is insufficient 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 a single concise sentence that efficiently lists the updatable fields. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be improved with minimal additional context like requiring the worker ID.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many related sibling tools (e.g., delete, reboot, upgrade), the description is too minimal. It does not explain behavior for omitted fields, partial vs. full update, or what the response looks like. It lacks essential context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only 29% (id and labels have descriptions). The description repeats field names (name, hostname, IP, status, labels, active flag) but does not add constraints, format details, or relationships. For example, 'status' may have allowed values, but none are provided. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a worker' and lists specific fields (name, hostname, IP, status, labels, active flag). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get worker tools. However, it does not explicitly mention that the update is for a specific worker by ID, which is implied by the required parameter.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lattice_reboot_worker, lattice_upgrade_worker, or lattice_stop_all_worker. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., worker must exist) or when not to use this tool. The description lacks explicit usage context.

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