Update access list

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Update an access list.' It does not indicate whether updates are additive/replacive, if the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is a critical gap for a mutating tool.

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 lacks essential detail, crossing from concise into under-specification. Each sentence should add value; this single sentence adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameter roles, or return values, leaving the agent with no actionable understanding.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (id, name, items, clients, pass_auth, satisfy_any). The agent cannot infer parameter meanings or constraints from the description alone, making it impossible to use correctly.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'access list', making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling update tools (e.g., npm_update_proxy_host) or specify what aspects of an access list can be updated, limiting its clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npm_create_access_list or npm_get_access_list. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints, leaving the agent with no decision support.

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