Update Transformation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility, and it delivers. It warns that the sent transformation replaces the stored one and that omitted fields are cleared, not preserved. This is critical behavioral information that prevents incorrect assumptions about merge semantics.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core operation is stated first, and the critical replacement/clearing caveat is delivered immediately afterward in a compact, readable way.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, the key behavioral risk, and the referenced sibling tool. Since an output schema exists, not explaining the return value is acceptable. Nothing necessary for safe invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds real value for the transformation parameter by explaining that it must be the complete resource and that omissions are destructive, which meaningfully informs payload construction.

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 clearly states it updates a transformation in a workspace, providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with create_transformation or revert_transformation, so sibling differentiation is mostly implicit rather than stated.

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 guidance: read the transformation first with get_transformation, send the whole resource back with edits, and be aware that omitted fields are cleared. It does not discuss when to prefer create or revert over update, but the read-first workflow is an explicit and valuable instruction.

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