update_devbox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Update', with no mention of idempotency, side effects, permissions, or the replacement semantics of metadata. Important behavior like 'merging is not supported' is only in the schema, not the description.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 simple update tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, but given the tool's low complexity and the schema's fullness, it is acceptable. Missing exclusions or alternative tool references lowers the score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the base score is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, which already documents each parameter, including the critical metadata replacement note. No extra value from the description.

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 a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('devbox') and names the fields it modifies ('name and/or metadata'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_devbox, create_devbox, or suspend_devbox.

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 implies usage: when you need to modify a devbox's name or metadata. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_devbox for new resources) or any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not detailed.

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