grokbot_update_agent

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits critical mutation semantics: whether omitted fields are preserved (partial patch) or cleared, whether existing values are overwritten irreversibly, required permissions, and error behavior. 'Update' alone is not enough for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the updatable fields with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than optimally scoped.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this definition is too thin: it never explains partial-update behavior, permissions, or the required agent_id. An agent could call it but could easily misunderstand what happens to unlisted fields.

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, but it only restates schema property keys (name, description, title, avatar_shape, avatar_color) and omits the sole required parameter (agent_id) entirely. No format, length, or allowed-value guidance is added (e.g., valid avatar_shape values), so meaning beyond the schema is minimal.

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 gives a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('agent'), and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent immediately knows this is the mutation counterpart to grokbot_get_agent / grokbot_create_agent. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating scope, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (agent must exist), and no routing to alternatives such as grokbot_create_agent or grokbot_get_agent. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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