hebbrix_update_procedure

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, so the description's added context about tenant ownership, mutability of fields, and immutable scope is valuable. It clearly tells the agent that not everything on the procedure can be changed, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the structured fields.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The core operation, resource type, and the key immutability constraint are all front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with eight parameters, zero schema description coverage, and a large sibling set, this description is too sparse. It provides no guidance on parameter semantics, no usage differentiation, and no hints about how the optional fields interact. The output schema helps, but the agent still lacks enough context to call this tool confidently.

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%, so the description should compensate for the eight parameters, but it only says 'mutable fields' generically. It does not explain procedure_id as the required scope identifier, nor the meaning of action, condition, or parameters objects, leaving the agent with only parameter names and types.

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'), a specific resource ('tenant-owned procedure'), and a clear scope ('mutable fields' vs immutable scope). It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like create/delete/execute by focusing on updating only mutable fields of an existing procedure.

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 implies the tool is for updating existing tenant-owned procedures and that the procedure scope cannot be changed. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over hebbrix_update, hebbrix_create_procedure, or hebbrix_execute_procedure, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites.

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