cldkctl_notebook_update

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

The description provides zero behavioral information. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's destructive, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description doesn't even clarify that this is an update/mutation operation (though the name suggests it). For a tool that likely modifies notebook resources, this complete lack of behavioral disclosure is inadequate.

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?

While the description is technically concise (one short sentence), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence 'Call the cldkctl_notebook_update endpoint' doesn't earn its place - it provides no value beyond what's already in the tool name. True conciseness would provide meaningful information in minimal space, whereas this is just insufficient specification.

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?

The description is completely inadequate given the context. This is an update/mutation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations to provide safety/behavioral context, and no output schema. The description should explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the update operation entails, and what to expect in response. Instead, it provides only a tautological restatement of the endpoint name, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?

The description provides no parameter information whatsoever. However, the schema description coverage is 100%, with all 4 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The schema adequately documents what each parameter represents (project_id, name, namespace, yaml).

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 'Call the cldkctl_notebook_update endpoint' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'update' means in this context (what aspects of a notebook are updated) or what resource is being modified. While the name suggests it updates notebooks, the description adds no meaningful clarification beyond the name itself.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'cldkctl_notebook_create' for creating notebooks, 'cldkctl_notebook_delete' for deleting them, or 'cldkctl_notebook_list' for viewing them. There's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this specific update operation should be chosen over other notebook-related operations.

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