treeflow_update_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Actualiza' (updates), which is already implied by the tool name, and does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to unspecified fields, any retraining side effects, or what the return value looks like.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the modifiable fields. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 an update tool, the description plus complete schema coverage provides enough to make a valid call: provide tree_id, intent_id, and the fields to update. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks behavioral details like partial-update semantics and side effects, so it is not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds some conceptual mapping by calling entities 'slots/parámetros' and patterns 'frases de entrenamiento', but it does not add significant new meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Actualiza') and resource ('una intención existente'), and explicitly lists the mutable aspects: nombre, frases de entrenamiento, and slots/parámetros. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_intent, delete_intent, and list_intents.

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 phrase 'intención existente' implies the tool is for modifying an already-created intent rather than creating one, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as update_entity or how it relates to create_intent/delete_intent.

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