update_bin

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'Update' implying mutation, but it does not clarify scope (e.g., whether the operation is a full replace or partial update, what happens if the bin does not exist, or any side effects). Additionally, the mention of 'configuration' is misleading because the schema only supports updating the 'name' and does not include a configuration parameter.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, the inclusion of 'configuration' (which is not a parameter in the schema) is a minor clarity issue, though it does not cost much in terms of conciseness.

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 simple 2-parameter update tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but lacks some context. It does not explain that the 'bin' parameter is an identifier, that 'name' is optional (since not required), or what the result of the operation is. The misleading 'configuration' reference further reduces completeness.

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% for both parameters ('Bin name or ID' and 'New name'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters, but it does not contradict the schema either.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource 'a bin', and specifies the action fields ('name or configuration'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_bin, get_bin, and list_bins, all of which have different purposes.

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 verb 'Update' makes it clear this is for modifying existing bins, providing context for when to use it versus create_bin or delete-like operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score but is still clear.

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