npm_update_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state that this is a mutation, whether it is a full replace or a partial patch, what happens to fields left unspecified, whether changes are reversible, or what 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?

The single five-word sentence is short but not concise in any useful sense — it is under-specified rather than tight. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing of substance is present.

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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Although the input schema documents the parameters, the agent still lacks mutation semantics and any indication of what the update returns or affects.

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%, with all eight parameters individually documented, so the schema already carries parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional semantics such as which fields are optional or how certificate_id="new" behaves.

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 phrase "Update an existing stream" does little more than restate the tool name npm_update_stream. It identifies a verb and a resource, but gives no sense of scope (what settings are updatable) and no differentiation from siblings like npm_create_stream, npm_get_stream, or npm_enable_stream.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. an existing stream_id is required), and no mention of the alternative tools an agent should consider first. The description offers nothing to route between npm_update_stream and its siblings.

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