update-workload

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 states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, as critical behavioral traits are missing.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'workload' is, what 'PCE' stands for, or provide any context on the update operation's scope or effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no information beyond the tool name. Parameters like 'name', 'ip_addresses', and 'labels' are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their purpose and format unclear. This fails to compensate for the low 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?

The description 'Update a workload in the PCE' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('workload in the PCE'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-iplist', 'update-label', or 'update-ruleset', which also update resources in the PCE, so it lacks specific 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workload), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create-workload' or 'delete-workload'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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