Update a tag, trigger or variable

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses full-replace semantics, the need to fetch first, fingerprint-based optimistic concurrency with failure on mismatch, and required OAuth scope. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then essential semantics, then security/concurrency details. No filler; every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the full workflow (fetch-modify-send), the full-replace semantics, concurrency safety via fingerprint, and the required scope. Despite no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, but the description adds context beyond the schema: it explains that the body must be the complete replacement object, and clarifies the fingerprint's role in concurrency (last-seen, mismatch fails). This lifts it above the baseline 3.

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 updates a tag, trigger, or variable by its API path, and specifies PUT semantics as a full replace. This distinguishes it from create_entity, delete_entity, and get_resource, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: fetch the current resource with get_resource, modify it, and send the whole object back. It also explicitly states this is NOT a patch, providing a clear when-not-to-use condition for partial updates.

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