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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding the patch semantics ('anything you omit is left as-is'), which materially softens how an agent should read that destructive hint. It also discloses the return ('Returns the updated agent') and the team-scope authorization limit. It does not describe side effects of changing presets or credit-charging behavior beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the partial-update contract, then a scannable list of updatable fields, then the return and scope constraint — no filler sentences. The inline field enumeration mildly duplicates the schema and is presented as a complete 'Updatable:' list while skipping two nested-object parameters, which is a small structure/precision cost.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the key contract (partial update, team scope, return value) and routes the caller to helper tools for the opaque nested objects. The omission of composition_parameters and caption_style_overrides from the updatable list is the only notable gap, and the schema documents them fully.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by cross-referencing the correct source tools for identifiers and preset keys (list_agents, list_caption_presets, describe_agent_settings). Its inline enumeration of the updatable fields partially duplicates the schema, and it omits composition_parameters and caption_style_overrides from that list, which slightly undercuts the 'Updatable:' framing.

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 and resource ('Update one of the team's agents') and immediately bounds the scope ('Only agents on your current team can be updated'). It differentiates itself from siblings by naming the sources of its identifiers (list_agents, list_caption_presets), so an agent can tell it apart from create_agent or describe_agent_settings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: pass the agent hashid from list_agents and only the fields you want to change, since omitted fields are left as-is — this tells the caller this is a partial update, not a replace. It also states the team-scoping precondition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition (e.g., when to edit settings via describe_agent_settings first).

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