update_terraform_alias

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: edition/license gating and possible 404/empty responses. It still omits what the destructive behavior means in practice (partial vs. full replacement of the alias, permission errors, side effects on references).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and route, then the caveats and body note. There is no filler, though the availability sentence is somewhat generic boilerplate.

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 destructive, idempotent-flagged mutation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should clarify body fields, the effect of the update, and error behavior. It covers availability and the string-encoding constraint but leaves the core mutation semantics undocumented.

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 0% across 4 required params, including a nested body object, so the description must carry the semantics. It only says 'supply API fields in body' and that JSON-encoded string fields stay strings; it never names the body fields (auth_key_id required, alias, project_id, inventory_id) or explains the path IDs, leaving the agent to read the raw 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('update terraform alias') plus the exact PUT route, which separates it from create_terraform_alias, delete_terraform_alias and get_terraform_alias. It does not say what an alias is or which attributes are updatable, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

The availability note (edition/license/permissions, Community routes returning 404 or empty lists) is useful precondition context. However, it never says when to choose this over create_terraform_alias (new vs. existing alias) or list_terraform_aliases, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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