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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description correctly signals that renaming carries the agent's memory file across automatically, which is significant behavioral context. It also warns about approval requirements, adding transparency beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail the full extent of destructive effects (e.g., irreversible changes) but covers key aspects.

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 compact (two paragraphs) and front-loads the primary action and examples. Every sentence provides actionable value: scope, trigger phrases, alternative tool, and approval workflow. No fluff.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what not to mix, and required pre-conditions (approval, companyId). The schema covers parameters fully, and the description adds the necessary context for correct invocation in real scenarios.

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 description already benefits from baseline 3. It adds critical usage constraints for parameters: for 'name' it specifies to use a single first name and 'Do not include a title', and for 'role' it says 'Do NOT include the agent name'. These guardrails help avoid common mistakes beyond the schema's raw 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 it updates an agent's display name and/or role/job title with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from recalibrate_agent_jd for mission/skills changes and from other sibling tools like update_agent_skill and update_agent_avatar by focusing on name and role.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('rename X to Y', 'call this agent Z', 'fix the title') and explicitly states when to use a different tool ('For changing an agent's mission/skills use recalibrate_agent_jd instead'). It also includes approval workflow instructions, which are crucial for correct invocation.

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