harness_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that passing a URL auto-extracts identifiers, the response includes an openInHarness link, and the confirm parameter semantics (only needed for medium_write risk when client cannot prompt). This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, specific usage instructions for complex cases, and response behavior. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, enums, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: resource type, body format, URL usage, confirm risk, and response link. It does not explicitly mention the output schema or error handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden. Slightly more details on scope and idempotency could be added, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description significantly enhances understanding: it explains preferred body formats for pipelines/input sets (YAML string vs. yamlPipeline/pipeline), the url parameter's auto-extraction behavior, and the conditional necessity of confirm. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema 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 clearly states 'Update an existing Harness resource' with specific verb 'Update' and resource 'Harness resource'. It distinguishes from siblings like harness_create (create new), harness_delete (delete), harness_get (read). The additional details about pipelines/input sets further specify the resource types.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (updating existing resources) and includes specific instructions for passing body (YAML string or object) and using URL for auto-extraction. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like harness_create or harness_describe to guide the agent when to choose this over alternatives.

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