update_rdsh_farm

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description is consistent with them, so no contradiction. However, the description itself adds nothing beyond those annotations — no note that changes overwrite existing config, what happens to omitted fields, or any permission requirement.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero padding, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or risk. Still, for a destructive update taking a nested, free-form spec object, the description is minimally adequate — the real guidance is delegated entirely to the schema.

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% and the nested spec parameter is thoroughly documented (fetch via get_rdsh_farm, omit read-only fields like id, type, source). The description contributes nothing to parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing RDS farm's configuration'), so the agent knows exactly what object is mutated. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many other update_* siblings (update_desktop_pool, update_application_pool, update_settings); the name alone carries that distinction.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance. The useful workflow hint ('retrieve the current config with get_rdsh_farm, modify, pass here') lives in the schema parameter description, not in the tool description the agent reads first.

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