update_compliance_control

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it warns that state writes are silently ignored (HTTP 200 but never persist), that only the UI Attest button can move a Control into attest, and that the tool requires WRITE_ENABLED=true. These are high-value operational constraints not available in the annotations or schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical caveat and the write-gate requirement. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the bold warning appropriately emphasizes the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite.

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 an update tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides the necessary behavioral context: scope, sys_id targeting, a critical state-field limitation, and the WRITE_ENABLED requirement. No output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the allowed fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance by calling out that state is not in the allowed field set and cannot be updated via REST, which clarifies a likely user assumption beyond the schema listing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Compliance Control by sys_id.' It is immediately clear what the tool does and which object type it operates on, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_compliance_control, get_compliance_control, and update_compliance_policy.

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 clearly implies updating an existing control identified by sys_id and explicitly warns that the state field cannot be updated through this tool. It does not route the agent to alternatives for fetching a sys_id or creating a control, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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