update-rum-application

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

Annotations correctly indicate a non-read-only operation, and the description's 'update' aligns. The term 'existing' implies the application must exist, but no details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency are provided. Beyond the schema, no additional behavioral context.

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?

A single 8-word sentence that is perfectly front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 sufficiently covers the action and inputs (with schema support), but lacks any mention of return values or error behavior. Given no output schema, the agent is left to infer typical update response patterns.

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% with adequate per-parameter descriptions. The description's mention of 'name or type' summarizes the optional fields but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('existing RUM application'), and the specific fields that can be modified ('name or type'). It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like create-rum-application and delete-rum-application.

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 (e.g., create vs update). No mention of prerequisites or context where this should not be used. The description is purely functional.

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