vtex_update_warehouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing warehouse' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use in an automated environment.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource ('warehouse'), making it immediately scannable and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), usage context, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity of updating a warehouse and the lack of structured metadata, more descriptive content is needed for effective agent use.

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 both parameters ('warehouseId', 'name') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints like name length). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing warehouse' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('warehouse'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vtex_create_warehouse' (creation) and 'vtex_delete_warehouse' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'vtex_update_product').

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing warehouse ID), constraints (e.g., which fields can be updated), or compare it to similar tools like 'vtex_update_dock' or 'vtex_update_inventory'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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