Update machine

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds nothing to that picture. It does not say whether the update replaces or merges existing defaults, whether fields are optional/partial, or what permissions are needed for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation. No contradiction with annotations, but near-zero added value.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with zero padding, which is structurally fine. But for a 5-parameter destructive mutation the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place semantics could be filled in, and it leaves nested-object parameter behavior and required-parameter expectations unexplained. Annotations at least carry the safety profile, which keeps this above the floor, but the definition is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 5 parameters, including two nested-object params (env, secret_env), so the schema does no explanatory work. The description offers only the loose hint that these are 'execution defaults' — it never clarifies cwd, env, secret_env, or the required orgID/machineID, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Update') and a resource ('machine execution defaults'), so it is not a pure tautology of the name. However, 'execution defaults' is vague — it never names which fields (cwd, env, secret_env) are actually mutable, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like machines_create or machines_get beyond the generic verb.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or the machine_get/machines_list tools an agent would use to inspect state first. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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