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

The annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that this is a write that overwrites saved settings, with examples such as a topic or the chat widget. It does not add auth, rate-limit, or output-format details, but it meaningfully elaborates on the destructive behavior beyond the annotation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does, where the operation comes from, what it returns, and what kind of write it performs. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 generic update-operation dispatcher with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety traits, the description provides enough context: it names the source list, explains the return, and warns that it overwrites saved settings. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating how it differs from the create/delete/read runner siblings, but the core information is present.

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 the schema already documents both `operation` and `arguments`. The description reinforces that the operation and its arguments come from `list_operations`, but it does not add syntax or detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it runs an `update` operation of the Aide API, sourced from `list_operations`, and returns the result. It also characterizes the operation as a write that overwrites saved settings, with examples like a topic or chat widget, which clearly distinguishes it from `run_create_operation`, `run_delete_operation`, and `run_read_operation`.

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?

It states that the operation comes from `list_operations` and that this tool is specifically for update operations. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling alternatives as exclusions.

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