warehouse_update

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

The annotations already establish that the operation is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful scope by clarifying that the mutation is limited to the name/description rather than the full warehouse definition, but it does not disclose whether omitted fields are left unchanged or whether additional permissions are required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation and its scope.

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 simple metadata update, the schema and annotations cover the essential invocation details, and there is no output schema that needs explanation. However, the description omits guidance on choosing between warehouse_update and warehouse_update_definition and does not clarify whether both fields can be updated together, leaving some ambiguity for a selecting agent.

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 schema already documents displayName and description, so the description's mention of 'name or description' adds little beyond the structured data. It does help map 'name' to the displayName property, but it does not clarify valid values or update semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a warehouse') and names the mutable fields ('name or description'), which distinguishes it from definition-level updates like warehouse_update_definition. It is slightly imprecise because 'or' could imply only one field can be changed at a time when both displayName and description are independently optional.

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 given about when to use this tool rather than warehouse_update_definition or when a simple metadata update is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and the schema, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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