update_platform

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'update' and 'add/override', indicating mutation but lacking details on side effects, authorization, or what happens to unspecified fields. Behavioral transparency is minimal.

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, concise sentence covering both use cases without unnecessary words. It is well-structured for its length, though breaking it into two sentences could improve 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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits key details like required fields, partial vs full update behavior, and the meaning of complex parameters (e.g., instructions_file vs instructions, syntax_hints vs syntax_hints_append).

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., id, instructions, syntax_hints). The agent has no insight into how to correctly populate the fields.

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 (update/add/override) and resource (platform), and distinguishes between custom and built-in platforms. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like register_platform, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 implies two modes (update custom, add/override built-in) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like register_platform or unregister_platform.

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