update_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but there is no disclosure of whether data is replaced or merged, what happens on failure, idempotency, or authorization requirements. The description is too minimal to provide behavioral transparency.

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 a single short sentence ('Update a component.') that is efficient and to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb, but it could potentially include more details without losing conciseness. Current length is acceptable for its simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, mutation, no output schema, numerous siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'component' is, expected behavior (e.g., partial vs full update), return values, or error conditions. This is inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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% (all three parameters are described in the input schema: realm, component_id, component_data). According to the rubric, baseline is 3; the description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Update a component' uses a verb+resource but is very generic. It does not distinguish 'component' from siblings like create_component or delete_component, nor does it specify the scope (e.g., Keycloak component). The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation, earning a 3.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_component, delete_component, or get_component). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when updates are appropriate. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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