update_procedure

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether config is merged or replaced, or what happens to unspecified fields. The agent has no insight into the nature of the update operation beyond the name.

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 extremely concise (one sentence). It conveys the core purpose without fluff. However, it could have included more behavioral detail without sacrificing conciseness, hence not a 5.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, or the effect of updating an existing procedure. The agent lacks critical context for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints, examples, or relationships between parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (configuration of an existing procedure). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_procedure (creates new) and other update_* tools (different resources). The word 'existente' emphasizes it modifies an existing entity.

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 does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'existente' but lacks guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with related tools like create_procedure or other update_* tools.

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