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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds the useful constraint of requiring full agent text and chat_flow JSON. However, it does not disclose that the tool can also update existing versions (via the 'edit' and 'version_id' parameters), which is a behavioral nuance not covered by annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the action and then provide a critical usage constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters and an output schema, so the schema covers return values and parameter details. The description captures the core purpose and key constraint (full payload), but does not explicitly clarify the dual create/edit behavior. This is a minor gap given the schema already documents the 'edit' and 'version_id' fields, making it sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that 'agent' and 'chat_flow' must be sent in full, not as partial chunks, which clarifies the most important parameter relationship beyond the schema's individual 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create an instruction version via POST /v1/update-agent.' It uses a specific verb (Create) and resource (instruction version), and the added 'Send the full agent text plus chat_flow JSON, not a partial chunk' distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch-instruction-section, which likely handles partial updates.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for creating instruction versions and emphasizes sending the full payload rather than partial chunks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, making the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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