hub_resource_set

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

The description notes that edges are merged with existing values and that structured attributes must go in fields, not prose. However, it omits critical behaviors like idempotency, authentication requirements, or whether non-edges fields get overwritten or merged on update.

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?

Three sentences efficiently deliver purpose, usage rule, and guidance. No redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite covering purpose and some usage, the description lacks details on return values, error handling, idempotency, and deletion behavior. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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?

With 89% schema coverage, the schema already describes most parameters. The description reiterates that structured attributes belong in fields, but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Create or update a resource' and lists specific entity types (host, vm, service, endpoint, provider), distinguishing it from siblings like hub_card_set by specifying it replaces prose-based infra descriptions.

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 explicit instruction 'Use this instead of describing infra inside a card digest' provides clear context for when to use this tool over card-related siblings. However, it lacks explicit alternatives for read operations or distinctions between create and update.

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