modx_update_context_access

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 and largely drops it. It does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (critical, since only id is required), what permissions are needed, whether the change is reversible, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the key qualifier (by id) up front. It is efficient rather than bloated; the problem is under-specification, not verbosity.

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, no output schema and four undocumented parameters, one sentence is far too thin. An agent could not reliably construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only accounts for id. The meanings of policy, target, authority and principal are documented nowhere at all, leaving four required-to-understand fields completely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and a specific resource (context-access ACL entry) plus the lookup key (by id). This is enough to separate it from modx_list_context_access, modx_grant_context_access and modx_revoke_context_access, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 versus modx_grant_context_access or modx_revoke_context_access, nor any statement of prerequisites such as needing an existing entry id. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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