update-container-workload-profile

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 explicitly marks the operation as a WRITE OPERATION that changes PCE state, and it explains the approval-gated behavior in Claude Desktop/Claude Code, including the critical instruction that the call should not be retried while waiting. This is unusually transparent and actionable.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose, gives the key action, and then prominently warns about write behavior and approval gating. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or buried-critical warnings.

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 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, how to trigger management, mutation side effect, and approval pause behavior. It does not describe return values or prerequisites in prose, but for this tool the schema and description together are sufficient.

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 input schema already documents every parameter. The description mostly rephrases what the schema says about managed and assign_labels without adding new syntax, constraints, or cross-parameter relationships. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the verb ('Update'), the resource ('Container Workload Profile'), and the broader purpose ('manage Kubernetes pods in Illumio'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like update-workload or get-container-workload-profiles, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives clear context and actionable guidance ('Set managed=true and assign labels to start managing pods in a namespace'), but it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no exclusion or alternative routing, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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