update_agent_tool

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing partial-update semantics (only changed fields are applied) that idempotentHint does not convey. It still says nothing about required permissions, what happens to unmentioned nested fields, or the response.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the identity and the key front-loaded before the patch instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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 a free-form nested object, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain how to learn valid tool fields (e.g., via get_agent_tool) and what a patch returns. Neither is addressed, so an agent could not reliably construct the call from this definition alone.

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 0% and 'tool' is an untyped object with no declared properties, so the schema tells the agent nothing about which fields are valid or their formats. The description only contributes partial-update semantics; it never enumerates or points to the shape of tool{}, leaving the most complex parameter opaque.

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 ('Patch') and resource ('existing Convocore agent HTTP tool') plus the key ('toolId'), which cleanly separates it from create_agent_tool, delete_agent_tool, and get_agent_tool. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Pass only fields to change inside tool{}' is genuine usage guidance for patch semantics, implying omitted fields are left untouched. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs create_agent_tool/delete_agent_tool, and no stated prerequisite such as fetching the existing tool first.

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