update_namespace

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'Applies immediately — no dry run, no undo.' Describes return values ('no_changes' or {namespace, status:'updated'}). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.).

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?

Well-structured with a clear heading, behavioral summary, usage guidance, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary words. Important info is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (write operation, multiple optional parameters), the description covers all necessary context: patching behavior, no undo, how to get valid policy values, return values, and usage vs sibling. No output schema needed as return is described.

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 0%, but the description provides explicit semantics for all 5 parameters: name, cpu_limit, memory_limit_mib, storage_policy, and target. For each, it explains the meaning and how to omit to keep current value.

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 begins with '[WRITE]' and clearly states 'Update resource quotas or storage policy of an existing vSphere Namespace.' It distinguishes from sibling create_namespace by explicitly saying 'Use this rather than create_namespace when the namespace exists.'

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this rather than create_namespace when the namespace exists' and 'valid storage_policy values come from list_supervisor_storage_policies.' Also explains the behavior when omitting all fields (returns 'no_changes' without API call).

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