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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond that: it never says whether this is a partial or full overwrite, what happens to omitted fields, or which fields are destructive to change, which matters for a 14-parameter mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately compact, though the compactness comes at the cost of completeness rather than being a model of efficient richness.

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?

For a destructive 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description mentions only two conceptual targets (system prompt, settings) and omits update semantics, partial-update behavior, and the existence of most tunable fields. Annotations and schema carry the load, but the description is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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%, so all 14 parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description only gestures at 'system prompt or settings' and adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (agent) and narrows scope to 'system prompt or settings', which separates it from create_agent and delete_agent. However, 'settings' is vague and undersells the actual breadth of the 14 updatable fields (tags, status, temperature, customEvaluations), so it is clear but not fully precise against siblings like analyze_agent or refresh_agent_analysis.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative tool. It only implies that this is the mutation counterpart to create_agent/delete_agent, leaving the agent to infer context.

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