Update an addon

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the previous state is snapshotted before the write and can be reverted via nuvio_undo. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the operation's reversibility.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the updateable fields, followed by identification and undo behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name/title.

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 identity, mutable fields, and undo behavior, which are essential for calling the tool. However, it leaves profile_id unexplained, provides no output/return information, and does not specify runtime requirements like needing at least one identifier or field. These gaps matter given the 0% schema coverage and absence of an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters itself. It covers name, enabled, sort_order, url, and id/table id semantics, but it omits profile_id entirely and does not clarify runtime constraints such as whether an identifier is required or how id and url interact. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

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 action ('Change an addon name, enabled flag or sort order') and a clear resource ('addon'), with explicit identity fields. It is clear about what the tool updates, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools nuvio_toggle_addon or nuvio_reorder_addons.

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 identification guidance ('Identify it by url or table id') and notes the undo path, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nuvio_toggle_addon or nuvio_reorder_addons. There are no exclusions or conditional routing hints.

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