update dedicated endpoint

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with that. It goes far beyond annotations by disclosing that the call spends money, bills the workspace wallet, immediately meters accrued GPU-hours on stop/resize, requires an OWNER/ADMIN minting user, triggers specific status transitions, and returns only { ok: true }. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a mutating, money-spending operation.

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 dense but every section earns its place: the opening sentence states the full purpose, the money warnings are prominent, return shape and status transitions are explicit, and error cases are enumerated. The MONEY note is repeated for emphasis, but given the financial impact and complexity of this tool, the length is justified and well organized.

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 complex operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the exact action, HTTP method and scope, billing consequences, wallet gating, authorization requirements, status transitions, and likely 4XX error cases. An agent has enough behavioral and environmental context to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate the important edge cases.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning: enabled=false stops billing, gpu_type/gpu_count triggers price re-freeze and a wallet gate, and replica counts must satisfy max >= min >= 1. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions and helps an agent reason about combinations.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Scales, starts/stops, renames, or changes the GPU configuration of a dedicated endpoint') and clearly differentiates this update operation from sibling tools like create_dedicated_endpoint, get_dedicated_endpoint, and delete_dedicated_endpoint. It also anchors the HTTP method and path, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives concrete usage scenarios: use enabled=false to stop billing without deleting, and use gpu_type/gpu_count to re-size. It contrasts stopping with deletion, which helps the agent choose this tool over delete_dedicated_endpoint. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or name alternative tools beyond that implied contrast.

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