updateAgent

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: partial updates are supported ('Send only the fields you want to change') and voicemail detection is access-gated, requiring special permission. Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so these additional details enhance transparency.

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 core description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The additional voicemail warning in a blockquote is relevant but slightly verbose, containing a link and extra context; it earns its place but adds length.

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 complex nested requestBody schema with 100% parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description provides essential missing context: partial update behavior, the access-gated voicemail feature, and a pointer to request access. The tool is fully specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with descriptions for all properties, which establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by clarifying partial-update semantics and warning about the voicemail access gate, which helps an agent configure the requestBody correctly.

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 'Update an existing agent' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like createAgent and deleteAgent. The phrasing 'existing agent' makes the scope 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?

It provides clear usage context: updating an existing agent and sending only the fields to change. It implies the alternative of creating a new agent is not appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly name createAgent as the alternative.

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