update_topic

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation via 'update' and 'PATCH', implying a partial update, but does not specify idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a significant gap for an update operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is not verbose, but it is so minimal that it sacrifices necessary detail. It earns points for clarity and brevity, though it could include more context without becoming unwieldy.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It fails to explain return values, required fields beyond 'id', or any operational nuances. An agent would need to guess at the behavior of the other fields and the response format.

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 only 25% (only 'id' has a description). The description adds no information about the parameters 'name', 'visibility', or 'description', leaving them entirely undocumented. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('a topic'), and even specifies the HTTP method and path (PATCH /topics/:id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_topic and delete_topic without ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or conditions for usage. The context of 'update' is implied by the name, but there is no explicit discussion of when it is appropriate or when to prefer another tool.

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