update_vng

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It labels the tool as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and specifies the confirm parameter as a safety guard. This provides key behavioral context, though it does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., idempotency, permissions).

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 well-structured: a warning label, a clear purpose, then a bulleted argument list. Every sentence adds value, and critical information (destructive, confirm requirement) is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input parameters, destructive nature, and confirmation requirement. The sibling tools provide context for cloud-specific updates, so the description is complete for its purpose.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: vng_id with an example, updates_json with a JSON example, confirm's role, and account_id's default. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it updates an AWS VNG (launch spec) configuration, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling update_vng_azure by explicitly mentioning AWS, and the 'DESTRUCTIVE' label adds clarity.

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?

It explicitly requires confirm=true as a safety guard and instructs to pass updates as a JSON string with an example. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_vng_azure, though the context signals imply the distinction.

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