registry_update

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention smart identifier resolution and the ctx for resource change notifications, which are useful, but it omits side effects, authentication needs, reversibility of the plan change, or consequences of invalid plan values. For a mutation operation, this is a notable gap.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. The 'Smart identifier resolution' line is slightly redundant given the registry_identifier arg description, but it is still useful and non-verbose. No unnecessary prose.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., registry must exist), idempotency, error behavior, or how plan changes affect the registry. More critically, it lists 'ctx' as an argument while the input schema omits it, which will mislead an agent into sending an unrecognized parameter. The existing output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, and it does meaningfully. registry_identifier is described as accepting a name or ID, and plan lists example values ('start_up', 'business', 'premium', etc.). The inclusion of ctx (even though not in the schema) adds extra context. However, the 'etc.' is vague and no complete enum is provided.

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 the verb and resource: 'Update container registry plan.' It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like registry_create, registry_delete, and registry_generate_docker_credentials, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The 'Smart identifier resolution' note reinforces the core action.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., registry_list_plans to see plans before updating, registry_create for new registries). The only usage hint is about identifier resolution, which is more parameter semantics than usage context. An agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

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