Update project machine pool grant

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the exact mutation model: omitted fields are preserved, null reverts an override to pool inheritance, overlays/metadata are replaced whole, and running machines are untouched while new launches pick up the changes. This is the behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive patch and cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the update contract and free of filler. Each sentence introduces a distinct rule (preserve, clear, replace-whole, effect-on-existing-vs-new) and none restates the schema or annotations.

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 19-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics an agent must know to call it safely and no return-value explanation is needed. The remaining gap is per-field meaning for the numeric limits and any auth/permission context, which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 only 11%, so the 15-odd numeric limit fields (max_total_cpu, min_machine_cpu, etc.) carry no per-parameter documentation in either place. The description does add the crucial cross-cutting meaning of null versus omitted versus whole-replacement for overlay objects, which is why the nullable fields behave as they do, but it does not explain the individual limits, so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('the grant's overrides and limits'), so an agent knows this mutates a pool grant rather than a model grant or secret grant. It does not explicitly name which sibling it is not (e.g. grant_models_edit vs grant_pools_add/get), but the resource is clear enough to disambiguate from the surrounding CRUD family.

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 the partial-update use case through the 'omitted fields keep their current values' rule, but never says when to reach for this tool versus grant_pools_add, grant_pools_delete, or grant_pools_get, nor states any prerequisite. Usage is inferable from the update semantics rather than stated.

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