modx_ms2_update_option

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation via the verb "Update". It says nothing about required permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or whether the change is reversible, which is a major gap for a 9-parameter mutation tool.

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?

It is a single short sentence with nothing to trim, so it is concise, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. The phrase "in settings options" consumes space without adding information.

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 nine undocumented parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies almost nothing an agent needs to call it correctly. Key questions about which parameters are optional in practice and what the update affects on existing data are unanswered.

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 description coverage is 0% across nine parameters, including a nested "properties" object and an array "category_ids", and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Fields like "key" versus "caption" versus "category" versus "category_ids" are left entirely ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update a miniShop2 product option"), which separates it from modx_ms2_create_option and modx_ms2_get_option. However, the trailing phrase "in settings options" is vague and does not clarify whether it edits the option definition or an option's value on a product, an ambiguity that matters because modx_ms2_update_product_options is a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of modx_ms2_update_product_options, modx_ms2_assign_option_to_category, or modx_ms2_create_option, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the selection rule from the tool name alone.

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