Update backup volume

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Fields you omit are left unchanged (read-merge-write under the hood — the API itself does a full replace on PUT).' This goes beyond the bare operation and helps an agent understand that the tool preserves omitted fields, which is not obvious from the name or schema. With no annotations provided, this disclosure carries significant weight. It does not cover potential side effects or permissions, but the merge behavior is the key risk area.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second explains the key behavior, and the docs link adds a resource. No redundant filler exists, and every sentence contributes value.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage nuance (read-merge-write) and provides a docs link for deeper context. It does not explain return values or permissions, but for an update operation these are not critical. The sibling list is vast, yet the description adequately separates this from other backupvolume_* tools without requiring extra context.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitted fields are preserved, which directly informs how the 'extra' object should be constructed for partial updates. The schema already describes 'extra' as merged verbatim, but the description augments this with the merge behavior. The 'name' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, though its role as identifier is intuitive from the resource context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a backup volume record.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like backupvolume_delete, backupvolume_list, and backupvolume_sync by specifying the update action on the backup volume resource. No ambiguity remains about what operation the tool performs.

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 usage for modifying an existing backup volume record, contrasting with delete or sync siblings, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. The read-merge-write detail hints that partial updates are intended, yet no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.

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