update-volume

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

The annotations already indicate idempotentHint: true, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether updating the size triggers a resize operation, if there is downtime, or what permissions are required. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence of 16 words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it contains a typo ('Bult') that detracts from professionalism. It meets the threshold for being appropriately sized but not flawless.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the effect of updating only one parameter. For a mutation tool, more context about implications (e.g., whether updating size triggers a rebuild) would improve completeness.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with respective descriptions, so the burden on the description is low. The description mentions 'name or size' which matches the schema but does not add additional constraints or semantics beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., naming rules, size limits).

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'persistent volume', specifying that name and size can be updated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-volume, delete-volume, and wipe-volume. However, the typo 'Bult' reduces clarity and the phrasing 'app storage and database hosting needs' is somewhat vague.

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 a general context of usage ('for app storage and database hosting needs') but does not include explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools. It implies that this tool is for modifying existing volumes, but a beginner might not immediately understand when to choose this over recreating a volume.

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