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

Annotations only indicate that the operation is not read-only and not destructive; no further safety signals are provided. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether the operation is a partial update, what permissions are required, or what error conditions exist beyond what the schema already documents. For a mutating tool with sparse annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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, short sentence with no filler or redundant wording, making it easy to scan. The brevity sacrifices completeness, but conciseness itself is handled well and the key action and resource are front-loaded.

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?

This is a 9-parameter update tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, so the description needs to carry more orienting weight. It does not convey the breadth of settings that can be updated, whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any side-effect/error context beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The rich schema helps, but the description alone leaves an agent under-informed about the tool's full scope and behavior.

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 all 9 parameters in detail, including nuanced behavior for pinned, VPN config, and sandbox template. The description adds only a loose summary ('display name or delivery settings') that under-represents the full parameter set, but since the schema carries the semantic load, a baseline score 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 states a clear action, 'Update', a resource, 'agent', and a scope, 'display name or delivery settings', which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like updateAgentCaseTrigger and updateAgentFolder. However, 'delivery settings' is somewhat vague and the description omits other updateable aspects such as pinned state, agentic memory, thread association, and computer-use network/desktop settings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createAgent, deleteAgent, duplicateAgent, or updateAgentCaseTrigger. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or direct the agent to a more appropriate sibling, so the agent must rely on the tool name alone.

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