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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a WRITE operation and that PATCH semantics mean only supplied fields change, which is real behavioral information. It does not cover permissions beyond the token, error behavior, reversibility of changes, or whether updating non-owned agents fails.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by the auth requirement and write classification. No filler or redundancy.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials: ownership scope, auth requirement, write nature, and partial-update semantics. It leaves out return values and error/rollback behavior, but the critical call-time details are present.

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, but the PATCH note adds collective meaning across the 7 optional fields that the schema does not express: omitted fields are preserved rather than cleared. That is genuine added value beyond the per-parameter 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 pairs an explicit verb (Update) with a specific resource (a centralized agent) and narrows scope with 'you own', which separates it from the create/list siblings. It is clear but never names the alternative tools (actora_central_agent_create, actora_central_agent_list) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

It states the prerequisite (must be an agent you own, requires a registered-user JWT) and the update style (PATCH), which implies when to use it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to sibling tools for creating, listing, or delisting agents.

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