update_namespace

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description details: patch semantics, no-change behavior, success response format, immediate application, non-destructive nature, and audit logging to specific files. No contradictions with annotations; in fact, it reinforces them.

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 well-organized with a clear heading, bullet points for behavior, usage guidance, and a structured Args section. No redundant sentences; every part serves a purpose.

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 5 parameters, patch semantics, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, patching behavior, edge cases (no fields), return format, audit trail, and parameter hints. It is fully complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description documents all 5 parameters with meaningful context: source for name, units for cpu_limit and memory_limit_mib, storage_policy reference, and target config file location. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with '[WRITE] Update resource quotas or storage policy of an existing vSphere Namespace,' clearly stating the action (Update) and the target (existing vSphere Namespace). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_namespace and list_namespaces by specifying the tool is for updates only.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use create_namespace for new namespaces; use list_supervisor_storage_policies to find valid storage_policy values.' It also explains the patch behavior, which helps with proper usage.

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