update_agent

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the auth requirement but does not clarify partial update behavior or response details. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and fields, second provides the auth constraint. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with essential information.

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 full schema documentation and annotations, the description adds the key auth requirement. It does not specify return value or partial update semantics, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool. Overall sufficient for an update operation.

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%, so the description summarizes the parameters but does not add new semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. For example, 'metadata' is described as 'arbitrary metadata (max 16KB)' in the schema, same in summary.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'agent', listing specific fields (name, description, metadata, status). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_agent, delete_agent, get_agent by focusing on mutation.

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?

The description provides context on when to use (to update agent properties) and adds a critical restriction: requires an org-level API key, agent-scoped keys cannot mutate agents. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the restriction is valuable.

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