Atualizar uma assinatura

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description 'updates allowed data' aligns but does not add context beyond annotations. It does not explain side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description meets minimal expectations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and action. No extraneous information. Every sentence contributes to clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, output schema, many siblings), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks details on partial updates, field behavior, or return value. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the burden. The description is minimally complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'updates' and resource 'subscription'. It distinguishes from creating a new subscription by explicitly mentioning 'without creating a new subscription'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_subscription.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: 'to review individual configuration... without creating a new subscription'. This implies modification of an existing subscription. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, such as when to use update_metadata or cancel.

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