arvan_vod_update_watermark

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

Annotations indicate it is write/update (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description merely says 'update', which is consistent but adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., partial vs full replacement, validation, side effects).

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 sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices essential detail for brevity. It is front-loaded but lacks information that would fit naturally.

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 of the 'fields' parameter (nested object with additional properties), the absence of output schema, and the presence of many related VOD tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the watermark domain, update semantics, or common use cases.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. 'watermark_id' is self-explanatory, but 'fields' is an opaque object without hints about valid keys or structure. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Update a watermark with the given fields' clearly states the action (update) and resource (watermark). It differentiates from sibling tools like create/delete/get watermark. However, it does not elaborate on the specific nature of the update or any scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., watermark must exist) or cases where this should not be used. The description provides no context for decision-making.

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