update_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates an agent and returns the updated profile. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the agent does not exist. 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 very short and has a clear Args/Returns structure, which is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified; while concise, it omits essential details about parameter encoding and usage context, making it less 'appropriately sized' than it could be. The brevity does not earn its place because it leaves critical questions unanswered.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields can be updated, how to pass multiple fields via the string-typed 'kwargs', whether the agent must exist, or the relationship to sibling tools. There is no output schema, so more detail on the return value would be expected, but it just says 'Updated agent profile'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It labels 'name' as 'Agent name' (trivial) and 'kwargs' as 'Fields to update' (vague). Critically, the schema expects 'kwargs' as a single string, but the description refers to '**kwargs' (keyword arguments), implying a dict format. No encoding (e.g., JSON) is explained, making the parameter usage unclear.

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 an existing agent') and the resource (agent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like register_agent (create) and remove_agent (delete) by the verb. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, leaving some ambiguity about the scope of 'update'.

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 (e.g., agent must exist), nor does it contrast with register_agent for creation or remove_agent for deletion. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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