update_liveview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' and describes parameters; it does not state whether the update is partial or full, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what side effects may occur. This is a significant gap for a 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first followed by concise parameter clarifications. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 covers the basics and provides an output schema, but it lacks adequate guidance on valid settings keys, update semantics, and behavioral expectations. For a tool accepting an arbitrary nested settings object, the documentation is functional but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for host (console name, ID, or MAC:numericId composite), marks liveview_id as REQUIRED and tells the agent where to obtain it, and describes settings as key-value pairs. However, the allowed keys and value shapes for settings remain underspecified.

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 'Update a liveview on a Protect console', identifying the specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_liveview, get_liveview, and list_liveviews, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself with a comparison statement.

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?

The description gives workflow context by instructing that liveview_id must be obtained from list_liveviews, and it clarifies accepted host formats. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving usage largely implied.

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