Update EV input configuration

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a write operation not classified as destructive. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details such as whether the update is a partial patch or full replacement, how missing fields are handled, or any side effects. It contributes nothing beyond what the annotations and the generic verb 'update' already imply.

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 concise at one sentence, but it merely restates the tool's title and adds no new information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, and the single sentence fails to earn its place by providing any practical value.

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 free-form payload, lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what an EV input configuration is, what fields are updatable, how to structure the payload, whether the update is additive or overwriting, or what success/failure responses look like. This makes safe and correct usage highly unlikely without external documentation.

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 provides zero information about config_id or payload. The payload is a free-form object with additionalProperties: {}, making its expected structure completely opaque. The description fails to explain what fields the payload can contain or how the update is applied, which is essential for correctly invoking the tool.

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 clearly states the action (Update) and the specific resource (EV input configuration), which visually distinguishes it from sibling update tools for schedules, templates, scenarios, and other entities. It is unambiguous in naming the target of the operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as create, delete, or get for input configs, nor does it mention prerequisites like the need for an existing configuration or how to obtain a valid config_id. Sibling tool names suggest related operations but the description itself provides no usage context.

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