tdx-project-update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving key operational details unspecified.

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 sentence with zero waste—'Update a TDX project' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It earns its place by stating the core action without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., auth needs, side effects), output expectations, and usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 parameters 'id' and 'data' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'PascalCase TDX field names' or provide examples). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra semantic value is contributed.

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 'Update a TDX project' clearly states the action (update) and resource (TDX project), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tdx-project-create' and 'tdx-project-get' by implying modification rather than creation or retrieval, but doesn't specify scope (e.g., fields, status) beyond what the schema indicates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing project ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'tdx-project-patch' (not listed) or 'tdx-project-create'. Usage is implied only by the verb 'update', with no explicit context or alternatives stated.

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