qradar_update_reference_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the mutating action, mentions the audit trail role of the source parameter, and indicates a JSON return value. However, it does not disclose permissions, overwrite semantics, idempotency, or any error conditions.

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 well-structured, with a one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information and the key action 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?

For a simple four-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers all parameters, the return type, and the audit trail behavior. It is only missing usage-routing guidance and a bit more behavioral caveat detail, but nothing required to make a basic call is absent.

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 does by explaining every parameter: name is the target Reference Map, key is the lookup key, value is what to associate, and source is the audit trail label. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Set or update a key-value entry in a Reference Map.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qradar_get_reference_map, qradar_list_reference_maps, and qradar_add_to_reference_set.

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 intended use case is implied by the action phrase 'Set or update' and the mention of a target Reference Map, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like qradar_add_to_reference_set or qradar_delete_from_reference_set, and no exclusions are stated.

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