update-runbook-execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says what the tool does but provides no details about side effects, required permissions, state restrictions, partial vs full updates, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though it is under-specifying, which is captured in other dimensions.

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 has 3 parameters (one an unbounded object), no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what 'details' means, what status values are valid, or any behavior around updates.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters. The agent is left to infer the meanings of runbook_id, instance_id, and the updates object solely from their names, with no guidance on the allowed shape of the `updates` object.

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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('runbook execution'), and further specifies what can be updated ('status or details'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-runbook-execution or delete-runbook-execution.

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 the tool is used when you want to change the status or details of a runbook execution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints like execution state.

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