Update Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data and is not contradicted. But the description adds zero behavioral context beyond that: it does not say whether the update is partial (merge) or full replacement, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or whether it requires the agent to be in a particular state.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined writing.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the parameter list: partial-vs-full update semantics, required preconditions, and what happens to omitted fields. With 100% schema coverage the parameters are known, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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% with four documented parameters (agent_id required; name, description, instructions optional), so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, notably not clarifying that omitting a field leaves it unchanged.

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 verb and resource ('Update an existing agent'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name and title, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling updaters such as mistral_update_library. It is the minimum viable statement of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus mistral_create_agent or mistral_get_agent, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., the agent must already exist, required permissions). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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