vpc_update_vpc2

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly notes this is an update operation and that it returns a success confirmation, and it discloses the unusual 'description or ID' identifier behavior. However, it does not address potential edge cases such as ambiguous descriptions, whether the update is idempotent, or any prerequisites.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured into clear Args and Returns sections. Every line earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 with an output schema, the description covers the main action, both parameters, and the return type. It is missing guidance on when to prefer this over sibling VPC tools and details about how identifier resolution behaves when a description is not unique, but overall it is minimally sufficient.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage, so the Args section is essential. It successfully explains that vpc2_identifier accepts either a VPC 2.0 description or an ID, and that description is the new value. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw string types, though the term 'description' in both roles could confuse.

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 action ('Update VPC 2.0 description') and the target resource, which is more specific than the sibling vpc_update. However, the repeated use of 'description' for both the identifier resolution and the new value creates slight ambiguity, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the vpc_update sibling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vpc_update or vpc_update_vpc2. The 'Smart identifier resolution' line explains how to specify the target, not when this tool is the right choice, so an agent receives no routing context.

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