update_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior and the null clearing mechanism for description. However, it does not discuss permissions, validation, error handling, or what happens when updating non-existent topics, leaving gaps.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the partial update nature. The second sentence adds a specific behavioral note. Efficient and well-structured.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a moderate complexity, the description is too brief. It covers only the partial update aspect and null handling for one parameter, but omits other behavioral details, error conditions, or expected outcomes like return value.

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 low (43%), covering only id, sender, and description. The description only adds value for the description parameter (null clearing), which is already documented in the schema. Other parameters like name, slug, visible, and defaultSubscription receive no additional explanation, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action (update), resource (topic), and scope (by id). It specifies that updates are partial (only provided fields change), which distinguishes it from create_topic and delete_topic. The handling of null for description is also explicitly mentioned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., topic must exist), nor does it exclude scenarios. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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