cdp_update_execution_bucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a mutation operation ('update'), but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing fields not mentioned. The JSON string format hint is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the critical JSON format requirement. While perhaps too brief for a mutation tool, every word earns its place by providing essential information about the operation and parameter format.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers the JSON format for the body parameter but leaves bucket_id and tenant_id unexplained. The output schema existence helps with return values, but the description should do more to explain the mutation's behavior and parameter meanings given the complexity.

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 compensate. It mentions 'updated fields as a JSON string' which clarifies the 'body' parameter's purpose and format, adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain 'bucket_id' (what identifies the bucket) or 'tenant_id' (when it's needed), leaving two of three parameters inadequately documented.

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 states the tool updates an execution bucket, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what an 'execution bucket' is or what fields can be updated, making it somewhat vague. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_execution_bucket' and 'cdp_delete_execution_bucket' by the update action, but lacks specificity about the resource itself.

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, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update tools like 'cdp_update_execution_summary_group'. The only usage hint is the JSON string format, but this is parameter guidance rather than contextual usage guidance.

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