conversation_ai_update_action

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already specify. Annotations indicate it is a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotent, but the description does not explain side effects, what fields change, or any constraints. No contradiction exists, but the description is content-free.

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 two words, which is concise but grossly under-specified. It lacks any structure or elaboration, making it closer to a placeholder than a functional definition.

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 5 required parameters, a complex details object, and no output schema, the description is completely insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. The description contributes nothing toward the complexity.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for ambiguous parameters, but it provides nothing. The nested 'details' object is complex and the 'type' enum is central, yet none of this is explained in the description.

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 Action' states a verb and a resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It provides no detail about what kind of action is updated, what the action represents, or how it differs from similar siblings like conversation_ai_create_action or voice_ai_update_action.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent receives no information about whether this is for modifying existing conversation AI actions or something else.

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