tdx-cmdb-update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Full update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a destructive replacement, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and is perfectly front-loaded.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Full update' means operationally (replace vs merge), what the response looks like, error conditions, or how this differs from patch operations. Given the complexity of updating configuration items and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more complete context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes 'Full CI data' or provide examples of PascalCase field names. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Full update') and resource ('TDX configuration item'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tdx-cmdb-patch' or 'tdx-asset-update' that might also perform updates on related resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling update tools (tdx-cmdb-patch, tdx-asset-update, tdx-kb-update, tdx-people-update, tdx-project-update, tdx-ticket-update), there's no indication of which resource types this applies to or when to choose this over other update operations.

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