Update Value List Entries

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the production version is preserved and a new version is created instead, which substantially changes how an agent should reason about the destructive flag. It stops short of saying whether the new version needs publishing before taking effect.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one piece of non-obvious behavior. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With a full schema and an output schema present, the description covers the main thing an agent cannot infer: the versioning side effect. It could still clarify whether the new version is live immediately or requires a publish step, but overall it is complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters documented, including the accepted string-or-{key,label} entry format. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Replace the entries of a value list's newest version.' This clearly separates it from create_value_list or update_lookup_table, but it doesn't name any sibling explicitly. The scope (newest version only) is precise.

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?

Usage is implied by the versioning rule: use this to change entries, and the tool handles version creation for you. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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