update_log_export

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: only specific fields can be changed after creation, the operation is suitable only before or between runs, and it returns 403 on non-Enterprise plans. This goes beyond the basic readOnly/destructive flags and helps the agent anticipate side effects and limitations.

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 pack all essential information: purpose, timing, mutable fields, alternative tools, and a critical error condition. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 the moderate complexity, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what can be changed, when to call it, what to do before/after, and a failure mode. An agent has enough to decide when and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly identifying which parameters are mutable (workspace_id, time_of_generation_max, requested_fields) and implying export_id is the required target. This contextualizes parameter usage beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 tool updates an existing log export configuration, with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('log export configuration'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying timing ('before or between export runs') and pointing to alternatives like get_log_export and start_log_export.

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 usage guidance: which fields are mutable, when to use it (before or between export runs), and exactly when to use other tools ('use get_log_export to review the current job and start_log_export after the definition is ready'). It also notes Enterprise-gating and 403 behavior, giving clear context for tool selection.

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