update_my_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: only passed fields are changed, triggers REPLACES the entire list, and a tool must keep at least one trigger. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but the key mutating behaviors are transparent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the critical trigger replacement caveat and the use-case distinction. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the core update behavior and the most important nuance (trigger replacement). It lacks explicit mention of output or error cases, but for a straightforward update tool, it provides enough context to use it correctly.

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 must compensate. It indirectly explains name, triggers, and stance, but 'description' and 'capabilities' are not addressed at all. The replacement semantics for triggers is clarified, but other parameters lack sufficient explanation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: editing an existing tool in place, with specific examples like renaming, changing triggers, or flipping stance. It also distinguishes this tool from re-declaring by preserving the tool's id and outcome record.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this rather than re-declaring' and explains the consequence of re-declaring (creating a second tool and orphaning the first), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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