Classification Update

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: that omitted fields are left untouched (partial update). It says nothing about permissions, failure modes for invalid ids, or side effects on AI auto-reply settings.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence partially restates what the schema's two-required-param structure already implies, which keeps it from a 5.

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 12-parameter mutation with rich schema descriptions and an annotation set, the description is minimally sufficient but thin. It omits any mention of how the AI-related flags (aiReply, aiReplyDraft, autoClose) interact or what the caller should expect after an update.

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% across all 12 parameters, so the schema already explains name, color, aiReply, promptId, autoClose, templateId, and the rest. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 a classification"), which an agent can distinguish from the create/delete/list siblings by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with classification_create or classification_delete, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Only provide fields to change" is a patch-semantics hint for invocation rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Nothing states prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing classificationId) or when to use create/delete instead.

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