scf_update_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it is a write operation requiring editor+ role and performs partial updates. It does not detail error handling or response format, but it is sufficient for common understanding.

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 sentence that includes all essential information: action, role, optional behavior. No redundant text.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat brief. It lacks information about return value, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., system must exist). It is adequate but could be more 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that updates are partial ('only provided fields are applied'), which is not obvious from the schema alone. It also mentions the role requirement.

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 it updates an existing system record, specifies the write operation and required role ('editor+'), and distinguishes from create/list tools by the 'update' verb and partial update behavior.

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?

It explicitly notes that all fields are optional and only provided fields are applied, giving clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use (e.g., for creating new systems) or compare with siblings like scf_create_system.

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