iaas_update_custom_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond repeating the endpoint already present in the annotation title; it does not disclose PUT full-replacement semantics (e.g., whether omitted templates are removed), permission requirements, or side effects. No contradiction with 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?

Two short lines with the action front-loaded and no filler, which is structurally sound. The brevity, however, comes from under-specification rather than from information density.

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?

This is a mutation with a deeply nested body object and no output schema, and the description leaves key questions unanswered: what a custom-name record governs, whether PUT replaces the whole spec, and what happens to projects/templates not included. For a tool of this complexity the description is not sufficient on its own.

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 reported as 100% at the top level, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the nested body contents (id, name, projects, templates, description) or the apiVersion format, but the schema constrains those fields, so this is adequate rather than deficient.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update custom name') and gives the backing endpoint, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it never explains what a 'custom name' object is (naming patterns/templates for resources) and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like iaas_create_custom_name, iaas_get_custom_name, or iaas_delete_customname.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the create/get/delete custom-name siblings, no prerequisites, and no note on whether the target id must already exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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