UpdateAccessConfig

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, safety, or permission requirements. It provides none—no indication of mutability, destructive potential, idempotency, or required authorization—making it completely opaque for an update operation.

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 extremely short but under-specified. It is a single vacuous sentence that provides no meaningful information, which is not genuine conciseness but rather a lack of substance. It does not front-load any useful context.

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?

The tool has a highly complex schema with nested objects and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate, failing to explain what an access config is, what the update operation does, or what the expected result is. This is grossly insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description adds zero meaning to the input schema. The key 'body' parameter is a large nested object with no description, while region/project_id have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not clarify what the body should contain or how parameters relate to the update, so it fails to compensate for the 33% schema coverage gap.

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 merely restates the tool name ('UpdateAccessConfig') with a generic 'Huawei Cloud LTS operation' prefix. It doesn't specify what an AccessConfig is or what updating does, making it a tautology without distinguishing from sibling tools like CreateAccessConfig or DeleteAccessConfig.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when update is appropriate, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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