iaas_update_fabric_compute

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent PATCH, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by declaring that only tag updates take effect, which matters because the schema also exposes CPU/memory allocation fields that will not be honored. It does not explain what happens if unsupported fields are supplied or what the response contains.

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?

Three lines with the first two saying the same thing ('Update fabric compute.' twice), which wastes the most prominent position. The useful constraint sits in the middle rather than being front-loaded, and the endpoint line is redundant with the annotation title.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key risk (only tags are applied) but leaves gaps: it does not say whether non-tag fields are rejected or silently ignored, nor what the PATCH returns. Given 100% schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by narrowing the effective parameter surface to the tags array, implicitly warning that maximumAllowedCpuAllocationPercent and maximumAllowedMemoryAllocationPercent in the body are not supported for update. That is a real semantic addition the schema alone does not convey.

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 (update) and resource (fabric compute), and the endpoint line anchors it to PATCH /iaas/api/fabric-computes/{id}. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as iaas_get_fabric_compute or iaas_update_fabric_network, and the purpose sentence is repeated verbatim.

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?

'Only tag updates are supported' gives an implied usage boundary: use this when you need to change tags on a fabric compute. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of the read sibling iaas_get_fabric_compute for inspection, and no preconditions such as required permissions.

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