update_ability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals nothing beyond the bare implication of mutation. It does not state whether the data object is a partial patch or full replacement, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects updating an ability may have on dependent entities.

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 with the verb front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But the text is under-specified rather than efficiently complete — it omits the parameter and behavioral context that this tool's complexity requires, making this brevity a limitation rather than a strength.

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 3 required parameters, an opaque nested data object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is entirely inadequate. An agent cannot determine required field structure, update semantics, or expected response, making correct invocation unlikely without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description provides no compensation: it never mentions id, campaignId, or the shape of the data object. Since data is an unconstrained nested object with no documented properties, an agent has no way to construct a valid payload from either the schema or the description.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('ability'), making the core operation clear within the CRUD family of sibling tools such as create_ability, get_ability, and delete_ability. However, it is essentially the tool name expanded into a sentence and adds no detail about what aspects of an ability can be updated, so it stops short of the specificity needed for a 5.

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 create_ability or delete_ability, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent receives no help choosing among the mutation variants in the ability family or understanding the conditions under which an update is appropriate.

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