Update Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required permissions, whether partial updates are allowed, or which fields are optional. With annotations carrying the baseline, the empty description earns a low score.

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?

Four words is not conciseness here but under-specification; the sentence is too sparse to earn its place. There is no front-loaded value because there is no value.

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?

This is a mutation tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage of mutation semantics. The description should explain partial-update behavior, permission requirements, or field optionality, but instead leaves the agent with essentially nothing beyond the schema.

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 schema fully documents library_id, name, and description. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a library' merely restates the tool name and title without adding specificity about what aspect of the library is updated or how it differs from siblings like mistral_create_library or mistral_delete_library. It is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent receives no signal about when updating is appropriate versus creating or deleting a library.

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