Update resource pool

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond listing updatable fields; it does not disclose replacement behavior (e.g., storage replaces existing list) or required permissions.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and lists key fields. It is concise but could be improved by briefly noting that 'allowed storages replaces the existing list' to clarify behavior without adding much length.

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 no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., success status). It also omits side effects: the storage parameter replaces the existing list, and the vms parameter likely replaces membership, but this is not clarified. The description is incomplete for a mutation tool with multiple params.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates by listing three of the four parameters (comment, allowed storages, VM/CT membership). However, it omits the required 'poolid' parameter and does not clarify array semantics (e.g., whether vms adds or replaces). The schema itself has some descriptions, so the added value is limited.

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 'Update an existing resource pool' and lists the specific fields that can be updated (comment, allowed storages, VM/CT membership). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pool and delete_pool, and from other update tools by specifying the resource type.

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 usage when needing to modify a pool's comment, storages, or membership, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use update_pool vs update_vm_config). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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