update_log_export

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

Adds context beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive): only workspace_id, time_of_generation_max and requested_fields are mutable after creation, and non-Enterprise plans return 403. It does not say whether attempts to change immutable fields error or are silently ignored, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three tight sentences: mutability constraint first, lifecycle routing second, gating/error last. Front-loaded and free of redundancy, though the trailing 'Enterprise-gated. Returns 403...' could be folded into one clause.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs the operational framing, and it supplies it: timing, mutable-field limits, sibling ordering, and plan gating. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds real value by partitioning the four parameters into the immutable export_id and the three mutable fields, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing log export configuration') and names the two sibling tools it sits between in the lifecycle (get_log_export, start_log_export). An agent can distinguish it from create_log_export/cancel_log_export without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('before or between export runs') and routes the agent to get_log_export for review and start_log_export once the definition is ready. That is a concrete when-to-use plus named alternatives, not just implied context.

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