update_rdsh_farm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'update a configuration' without revealing whether this is a partial merge or full replacement, what side effects occur, or how errors are handled. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single, streamlined sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource. It is somewhat under-specified, but for its length it is structured efficiently.

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?

The schema and output schema cover parameters and return values. However, because there are no annotations, the agent still lacks an explicit statement of the update semantics, prerequisites (e.g., farm must exist), or interaction with actions. The description is sufficient combined with the schema but not complete on its own.

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 input schema already thoroughly explains farm_id and the spec pattern (retrieve via get_rdsh_farm, modify, omit read-only fields). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('update') and resource ('RDS farm') with the qualifier 'existing', which clearly signals it operates on already-created farms. This distinguishes it from create, delete, and list siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 choose this tool over get_rdsh_farm, create_rdsh_farm, rdsh_farm_action, or delete_rdsh_farm. The schema mentions getting current config from get_rdsh_farm, but that is parameter guidance, not usage selection guidance.

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