iaas_update_vmc_cloud_account_async

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world semantics, so the description owes additional context — and delivers none. Despite "async" in the name and the PATCH being a mutation on a live cloud account, it never explains the async/request-tracker behavior, that a full credential set (apiKey, password, sddcId, hostName, regions) is required and may overwrite stored values, or any auth requirements; the only meaningful safety note (avoid changing hostName) lives in the schema, not here.

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 zero filler, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy: one restates the name and one is a raw HTTP template that duplicates the annotations title. There is no front-loaded explanation of effect or prerequisites.

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 an asynchronous mutation with a 3-param signature wrapping a 17-property nested required body and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: what async means for the caller (tracker/request id), that the body schema is effectively a full credential spec with most fields required, and the caution against changing hostName. The complexity demands far more than a path echo.

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% and every body field is documented inline, so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description only implies that {id} is a path parameter via the raw path string and adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Update VMC cloud account") which does distinguish it from iaas_update_vsphere_cloud_account_async and iaas_update_aws_cloud_account_async by name alone. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name and the annotations title (which is literally the HTTP path), so there is no real elaboration of purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. Nothing says how this differs from iaas_update_cloud_account_async, iaas_create_vmc_cloud_account_async, or when to update vs. delete/recreate a VMC account (iaas_delete_vmc_cloud_account, iaas_get_vmc_cloud_account).

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