agent_studio_update_agent_version

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate a non-read-only, possibly world-modifying operation, but the description does not explain what 'update' entails (e.g., whether it replaces the entire version or patches fields, whether it is reversible, or how it interacts with publish/promote flows). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 terse, which is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It lacks any context that would help the agent use the tool correctly for a complex 13-parameter operation. The two-word description does not convey the necessary structure or affordances.

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's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), this description is wholly inadequate. It provides no context about the update semantics, required versus optional fields, or behavior, leaving the agent unprepared to invoke the tool correctly. The low word count does not compensate for the tool's sophistication.

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 high at 85%, so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description. The description does not enhance parameter understanding, but the schema already documents most parameters, including edges/nodes and other fields, so the agent has baseline information from the schema.

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 'Update Agent' provides only a basic action and object, but fails to indicate that this tool updates a specific version of an agent, not the agent itself. It does not differentiate from siblings like agent_studio_update_agent_metadata or agent_studio_create_agent, leaving the agent without a clear understanding of the tool's specific scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple agent-related update tools in the sibling list, the description gives no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's purpose without support.

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