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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety/mutation profile is covered. The description adds the PUT verb and 'same body as create plus agent_id', which usefully signals full-replacement semantics (consistent with 7 required fields), but it does not state what happens to the live agent, auth requirements, or side effects.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short clarifying clause; both carry information and there is no padding. It is arguably terse for a 7-required-parameter mutation tool, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, return values and parameter details are covered elsewhere, so the description need not repeat them. It correctly identifies the resource and its create-relative shape; only live-effect and auth context are missing.

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 every parameter and the baseline is 3. 'Same body as create plus agent_id' adds a small amount of meaning by mapping the field set to create, but no syntax or format details beyond the schema are provided.

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 ('Edit a Retrieve agent') and adds the concrete endpoint (PUT /agents/edit/{agent_id}), which lets an agent distinguish it from claix.agents.create and claix.agents.pause. The phrase 'Same body as create plus agent_id' further anchors it against the create sibling, though it never names pause as the alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The reference to create implies a relationship (edit an existing agent vs. make a new one), but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection rules are given. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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