update_custom_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only says 'edit or update' without detailing side effects, whether the update is partial or full, or any permission requirements. This lack of behavioral transparency could leave agents uncertain about the tool's impact.

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, compact sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant phrasing or excessive detail, earning high marks for efficiency.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete for a tool with six parameters, including nested objects. It doesn't address update semantics, such as whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, or what the tool returns after successful execution. The brevity leaves critical gaps for agent decision-making.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters. The description merely summarizes 'code, prompt instructions, or parameters' without adding new insight into parameter semantics or usage nuances. It meets the baseline but doesn't elevate understanding.

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 function: editing or updating a custom Google Flow tool's code, instructions, or parameters. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_custom_tool or audit_custom_tool. This is a strong, unambiguous definition.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new tool or running it. The purpose is implied by the 'edit or update' phrasing, but no exclusions or alternative options are mentioned. It provides minimal usage guidance beyond the core action.

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