ad_update_gpo

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not the required permissions, not whether changes are reversible, not what happens if an optional field is omitted, and — critically — not that dry_run and confirmation_token exist as a staged-confirmation path for a destructive mutation. The [WRITE] tag at least signals mutation, which prevents a 1.

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 sentence wastes no words and the bracketed [Domain] [WRITE] prefixes are a genuinely useful front-loaded convention. But brevity here is achieved through omission rather than economy — the description is under-specified, so the compactness counts against it rather than for it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Everything else is missing for a 6-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage: no field-level meaning, no dry_run/confirmation workflow, no permission or blast-radius context, and no guidance versus the seven sibling GPO tools. The description is not complete enough to invoke this safely without trial and error.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains identity (the only required parameter), never mentions gpo_status or comment as the actual updatable fields, and is silent on the non-obvious dry_run / confirmation_token / correlation_id workflow parameters whose semantics an agent cannot infer from their names alone.

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 gives a verb plus resource ("Atualizar ... de GPO") and the bracket tags identify the domain and that this is a write operation, so the agent knows the general operation. However, "configuracoes suportadas" is undefined — it never says that the updatable surface is limited to comment and gpo_status, which is the one fact that would separate this from a general-purpose GPO mutation. It is adequate but not specific enough to differentiate confidently from ad_create_gpo or ad_link_gpo on first read.

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 statement of when to use this rather than the sibling operations (ad_create_gpo, ad_delete_gpo, ad_link_gpo, ad_unlink_gpo, ad_set_ou_protection), nor any prerequisites, nor when not to use it. The only routing signal is the [WRITE] tag, which merely implies 'modifies something' rather than distinguishing this tool from the other GPO writers.

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