update_my_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics ('only passed fields change'), the destructive replace behavior of triggers, and that the id and outcome record survive the edit. It stops short of stating error behavior for an unknown tool_id or name collisions.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key semantic rule, then the triggers warning, then the identity guarantee. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical field list is a small redundancy with the schema.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It covers mutation semantics and replace-vs-merge well but is incomplete for a six-parameter tool where two parameters go unexplained and no return/permission context is given.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the critical triggers-replacement rule and the null/omit-means-unchanged pattern, but two of six parameters (description, capabilities) are never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer they behave like the others.

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 ('Edit a declared tool') and enumerates the editable fields (name, triggers, stance). The phrase 'Edit, don't re-declare' implicitly distinguishes it from declare_my_tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Edit, don't re-declare: keeps the id and its outcome record' gives a clear condition for choosing this over re-declaring the tool. It doesn't address remove_my_tool or failure cases, but the primary alternative is covered.

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