update-filters

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already declare (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not disclose partial update semantics, error handling, or what happens if a filter id does not exist. The sole phrase 'with new values' implies overwriting but gives no specifics. Since annotations carry the destructive/read-only hints, the description offers minimal additional transparency.

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 a single, direct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the core action ('Update') and the target ('personal filters'). While it could be slightly expanded, it is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters are fully described in the schema.

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 tool's complexity (array parameter with nested objects, multiple optional fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite thin. It does not explain partial update behavior (whether omitted fields are left untouched), prerequisite for existing filters, or potential side effects beyond the general destructive hint. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the description leaves out essential usage context 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify that only the provided fields are updated, nor does it explain the editing behavior for optional fields. The schema itself already documents each parameter and the required id/color pair.

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 states a clear purpose: updating existing personal filters with new values. It identifies the resource (filters) and the action (update). It does not explicitly list which fields can be updated (name, color, query, favorite), but the schema provides that detail, and the description distinguishes from creation ('existing').

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add-filters or find-filters. It does not mention that this is for modifying already-created filters, nor does it point to any sibling tool for other operations. The user must infer usage solely from the verb 'update' and the schema.

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