Update instance

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description does not contradict these but does not elaborate on real-world effects such as whether changes are immediate or require a restart. For a mutation tool, more detail would be helpful, but annotations carry the burden.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently captures the scope without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly expanded to cover additional context without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (16 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, whether partial updates are allowed, or the effect of each parameter group. Agents may need to infer behavior from parameter descriptions alone, which increases risk of misuse.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description only summarizes that it updates 'size, scaling, and runtime settings' without adding new meaning or relationships. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Update an instance's size, scaling, and runtime settings,' which clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (instance), and the specific aspects that can be modified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_instance, get_instance, and delete_instance.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or situations where this tool should not be used. There is no explicit context for the agent to decide between update_instance and other instance-related tools.

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