treeflow_update_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that this is an update operation but does not mention any side effects, such as whether existing settings are overwritten, whether updates trigger retraining, or whether certain configurations are mutually exclusive. The mention of 'umbrales de confianza' hints at functionality not represented in the schema, adding ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 leads with the action verb and lists the key update targets without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately compact for a tool that touches multiple configuration aspects, though it could benefit from a brief structured breakdown given the number of parameters.

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 with 10 parameters, one required field, and no output schema or annotations, this description is too thin. It does not state the required tree_id prerequisite, the effect of updates on existing conversations or training data, or what success or failure looks like. An agent would need to inspect the schema and speculate on side effects before calling this tool.

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 each parameter. The description adds a contextual overview grouping parameters by configuration areas (NLP modes, confidence thresholds, sentiment analysis, purpose), but it does not provide any detail beyond what the schema already conveys. It also references 'umbrales de confianza' which do not map to any visible parameter, creating mild inconsistency.

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 the specific verb 'Actualiza' and clearly identifies the resource ('un bot'), and enumerates the updatable aspects: configuration, NLP modes, confidence thresholds, sentiment analysis, and purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling update tools (branch, leaf, intent, entity) by targeting bot-level settings, even though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 implies usage is for updating bot-level settings, and the phrase 'de un bot' provides some context for when this tool is appropriate among the many update siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusion criteria or scenarios that would favor a different update tool.

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