update_platform

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool can 'update' or 'add/override,' it doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and key limitation. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential context without redundancy or fluff.

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some usage constraints, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or response format. For a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at parameter applicability differences between custom and built-in platforms (e.g., 'custom platforms only' vs. 'works for both'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Update a custom platform or add/override instructions on a built-in platform.' It specifies the verb ('update'/'add/override') and resource ('custom platform'/'built-in platform'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'register_platform' or 'unregister_platform' beyond the update vs. create/delete distinction.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for updating custom platforms or modifying instructions on built-in ones. It explicitly states limitations for built-in platforms ('only instructions, instructions_file, and syntax_hints_append are supported'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives like 'register_platform' for creation.

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