Update prop

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (write, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds one behavioral detail — 'spray_unset removes spray keys (FDS default)' — which is genuinely useful for an agent. But it does not clarify partial vs full update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved) or permissions, leaving real uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the appended '[instructions] DEVC-009 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is cryptic and reads like leaked internal scaffolding rather than useful definition text. It detracts from otherwise clean structure.

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 24-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and 13% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits partial-update semantics, spray object shape, required-parameter behavior, and any return/error expectations, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 only 13% across 24 parameters, so the description carries the burden but does not meet it. It defers to add_prop ('same fields as add_prop') and explains only spray_unset; the other ~22 numeric fields (rti, beta_c, spray_angle, bead_*, etc.) remain undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Update an existing &PROP model') and scopes it to 'by ID'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the add_prop/remove_prop siblings via 'Same fields as add_prop', though it never names remove_prop or other property-editing routes. The jargon '&PROP model' is domain-specific but the intent is decipherable.

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 'Same fields as add_prop' clause implies this is the editing counterpart to creation, giving implied context. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g. set_fds_properties, spr_upsert_spray_profile) and no prerequisites. The trailing 'instructions for the model' DEVC-009 pointer to bulc_knowledge_search is opaque rather than actionable guidance.

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