Update backing image min copies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the update action, with no mention of side effects, such as whether lower values may cause existing copies to be pruned or whether higher values may trigger additional replica creation. It also does not note permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior.

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 clear sentence followed by a useful documentation link. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant or filler text.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, the description provides the essential purpose and a documentation reference. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would benefit from behavioral context (effects of changing the value, prerequisites, or confirmation behavior) to fully understand the operation's consequences.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the meaning of minNumberOfCopies ('minimum number of ready copies required'), but it does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond the general reference to 'a backing image', nor does it mention constraints like minimum 1. This is partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a precise resource ('the minimum number of ready copies required for a backing image'), which is far more specific than the title alone. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like backingimage_create, backingimage_delete, and backingimage_cleanup.

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 use case: call this when you need to change the minimum ready-copies threshold for a backing image. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of related backing image tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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