update_assistant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it's an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 15 parameters.

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 concise (4 words) and front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick scanning while still conveying the core purpose.

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 complex mutation tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails operationally, what fields are optional/required beyond assistant_id, or what the tool returns. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more contextual information than provided.

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 (87%), so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying updates are possible, which doesn't compensate for the 13% coverage gap. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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') and resource ('an existing assistant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_assistant' (creates new) and 'delete_assistant' (removes), but doesn't specify what aspects can be updated beyond the general concept.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing assistant ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_openai_token' or 'update_gemini_token' which might update specific assistant properties.

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