agent_studio_update_agent_metadata

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Update' — it does not clarify whether fields are partially updated (PATCH-like) or replaced (PUT), or mention any required permissions or side effects. It fails to add value beyond what annotations already convey.

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 extremely short ('Update Agent Metadata') and front-loaded with the action, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. Concise does not mean vague; a good description should add context within a few sentences. This fails to earn its place by omitting critical information.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the update affects, whether it requires an existing agent, what happens on success, or any limitations. An agent would need to explore the schema and sibling tools to use this correctly, which the description should have addressed.

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?

The input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (name, status, description, locationId), and the description adds no extra parameter meaning. According to the baseline, when schema coverage is high (>80% but here 67%), a score of 3 is appropriate because the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (agentId, source).

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') and a resource ('Agent Metadata'), but does not specify which metadata fields are affected or distinguish it from other agent update operations. It is not a tautology, but it is vague about scope, leaving the agent to inspect the schema to understand what can be changed.

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 instead of alternatives like agent_studio_update_agent_version, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., the agent must already exist). There is no mention of context or exclusions, so an agent has to infer usage from the name alone.

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