treeflow_update_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not explain that this is a partial update (name and description are individually optional per the schema), whether empty values can clear a field, what happens if neither field is supplied, or what the return behavior is. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

A single Spanish sentence that states the action and affected fields concisely with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, though this brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and usage detail penalized in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is thin. It omits core behavioral facts an agent needs: that it is a partial update, the role of the required tree_id/branch_id identifiers, and what a successful update returns. A simple additional sentence about partial-update semantics would substantially close this gap.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description loosely mirrors the schema by mentioning 'name or description' but adds no extra semantics about formats, validation rules, or relationships between parameters. The required identifiers (tree_id, branch_id) are left entirely to the schema.

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, 'Actualiza el nombre o descripción de una rama' (Updates the name or description of a branch), uses a specific verb plus a clear resource and ties the update to the specific fields affected. This differentiates it from sibling operations like create_branch, delete_branch, and list_branches, though it relies mostly on the tool name rather than explicit contrast to be unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as treeflow_update_tree, treeflow_update_leaf, or treeflow_create_branch. There is no mention of preconditions, required context, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate use case entirely from the name.

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