iaas_update_nsx_t_cloud_account_async

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the HTTP verb and path, and the path is verbatim identical to the annotation title, so nothing new is disclosed — notably the 'async' behavior (that the call returns a request tracker to poll) is never explained.

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 very tight lines with the purpose front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second line is redundant with the annotation title, which is the only wasted space.

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 tool whose name advertises asynchronous behavior and whose schema includes credential and certificate fields, yet the description never mentions async/polling semantics, auth requirements, or the caution about changing hostName (that note lives only in a schema description). The rich schema compensates for parameters, but the operational picture is incomplete.

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 100% with three required parameters, so the schema already documents id, apiVersion, and every nested body field including dcid, hostName, and certificate handling. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update NSX Manager cloud account'), which distinguishes it from siblings such as iaas_create_nsx_t_cloud_account_async, iaas_get_nsx_t_cloud_account, iaas_delete_cloud_account_nsx_t, and the other iaas_update_*_cloud_account_async tools. It does not enumerate what is updatable, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this over alternatives, no prerequisite or permission guidance, and no exclusion (e.g., don't use for hostname changes, which the schema hints at). The name implies the usage, but the description adds none of the routing context an agent needs.

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