hub_resource_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mutating nature ('Create or update') and states that structured attributes and typed relationships 'go in fields, NOT prose,' which clarifies the expected input format. However, it does not disclose idempotency, partial update semantics, error cases, or impact on existing edges (though the schema notes edges are merged). This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It wastes no words and immediately clarifies the resource category and formatting requirement.

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 9-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description provides enough context to know whether to invoke it and what kind of resource to create or update. It does not detail return values or error handling, but those are not critical for a setter. The mention of 'NOT prose' and the explicit list of resource types makes it functionally complete for agent selection.

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 already documents 89% of parameters with meaningful descriptions (e.g., slug as resource id, edges as typed relationships). The description names some attributes (type, address, os, provider, status) that map to schema properties, but adds no new semantics beyond emphasizing that they belong in fields rather than prose. This is baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Create or update a resource' clearly stating the action, then defines the scope as 'infrastructure/topology entity: host, vm, service, endpoint, or provider' – a specific, identifiable resource class. This distinguishes the tool from sibling read tools like hub_resource_list and hub_resource_get, and from other hub_* tools.

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 gives explicit guidance to use this tool instead of 'describing infra inside a card digest' and emphasizes structured fields over prose. It clearly defines when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling read tools or mention any exclusions beyond the card digest comparison.

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