update_output_schema

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

With no annotations, the description reveals important behaviors: the conflict detection via expectedVersion, the need to read first, and the ability to do partial updates (only changed fields). It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or what gets modified beyond the passed fields.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words; every sentence adds essential guidance. Highly efficient.

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?

Covers the update workflow, conflict handling, and partial update semantics. Lacks information about return values (e.g., whether it returns the updated object), but given the simplicity and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning: explains that expectedVersion is obtained by reading first and is used for conflict detection, and that fields should be only the changed ones in camelCase. This enriches the schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states 'Update a output_schema draft' using a specific verb and resource. The description distinguishes it from siblings like read_output_schema and create_output_schema by focusing on updating an existing draft.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Read it first to get expectedVersion; on a 409 conflict, read again and retry' and 'Pass only the fields you are changing'. This clarifies the prerequisite read step and conflict resolution. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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