warehouse_update_definition

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

Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining operational behavior. It adds the 'long-running' trait, which is useful, but does not disclose whether this is asynchronous, whether it replaces the full definition, how to track completion, or what side effects occur. This is adequate but thin.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key purpose and long-running caveat, then efficiently summarizes the two input modes. Every clause adds information.

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 mutating, long-running operation with no output schema, the description should say more about what happens after the call, how to poll or verify success, and whether the update is additive or replaces the entire definition. It is sufficient for a basic invocation but incomplete for an agent that needs to reason about the resulting state.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantic content by stating that definition parts can be supplied inline or via a directory path. This clarifies the relationship between parts and partsDirectoryPath, which the schema does not express.

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), the resource (a warehouse's definition), and the execution characteristic (long-running). It distinguishes this tool from warehouse_update by focusing on the definition, and the sibling set confirms a distinct definition-management pattern (warehouse_get_definition, warehouse_update_definition).

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 implies this tool is for updating warehouse definitions and offers two input modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus warehouse_update or warehouse_get_definition. The distinction is inferable from the name and sibling pattern, but no clear exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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