update_application

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits. For example, it does not specify if this is a full replace (PUT) or partial update (PATCH), whether it triggers a sync, or what happens to omitted fields. With zero annotation coverage, the description carries the full burden and fails entirely.

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 only 3 words, but this is not concise—it is under-specified. It wastes the opportunity to provide any useful context. A good description should be front-loaded with purpose and key constraints, but this is virtually empty.

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 complex nested input schema (with required metadata, spec, etc.) and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. The agent needs to know what fields are mutable, the effect of the update, and any side effects. None is provided.

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 description adds no information about the two required parameters (applicationName, application). Despite some inline schema descriptions for nested fields, the context signals 0% schema description coverage, meaning the tool's own description must compensate, but it does not mention any parameter meaning.

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 is a tautology: 'update_application updates application'. It merely restates the tool name and the implied action without specifying what exactly is updated (e.g., ArgoCD application resource, configuration, etc.). No verb+resource clarity beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_application or sync_application. Does not mention that it is for updating existing applications only, or what scenarios warrant an update vs. a sync.

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