ruddur_update_waypoint_placement

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent update. The description adds a permission requirement ('Requires scope: content.manage') and notes that placement aliases are accepted, which provides useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the update fully replaces or merges fields, or what the response contains.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds scope and flexibility. It front-loads the action and avoids redundancy.

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?

The tool has a required path parameter and an optional body/query, and no output schema. The description and schema together explain the operation, permission scope, and payload flexibility. It lacks detail about the response format or failure modes, but for a targeted update operation it is reasonably complete.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The body parameter's description adds valuable guidance: 'You may pass natural Ruddur fields directly at the top level instead of wrapping them in body' and 'For normal waypoint payloads, omit assessmentConfig.' The tool description also clarifies placement aliases. This extra semantic information raises the score.

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 'Update a Waypoint placement' – a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ruddur_create_waypoint, ruddur_attach_waypoint, and ruddur_delete_waypoint_placement. The addition of 'placement' makes the target resource unambiguous.

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 explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ruddur_update_waypoint or ruddur_attach_waypoint. The mention of placement aliases (heading, index, state, sortOrder) implies it is for reordering or changing a waypoint's placement, but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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