cb_options_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Patch,' indicating mutation, but does not explain what happens to existing options, whether changes are reversible, what the confirm flag actually does, or what side effects may occur. The line 'confirm: Required' adds ambiguity because the schema marks confirm as optional with a default.

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 short and the main action is front-loaded, which is good. However, it is more under-specified than concise: the Args section is sparse and does not meaningfully elaborate on the parameters or behavior, so it does not fully earn 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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations and a nested object parameter that is completely undocumented. The description lacks enough information for an agent to know what options can be patched, whether confirmation is truly required, or what the outcome will be. The presence of an output schema helps return-value expectations, but the input side remains incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it mostly repeats parameter names. 'values: Options object' does not explain the structure or accepted keys of the options object, and 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the schema, which lists values as the only required parameter and gives confirm a default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Patch CustomBuild options.' This clearly signals an update/modify operation on a distinct resource, and it is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like cb_options (read) or cb_run (execute). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related cb_* tools that might also modify CustomBuild state.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cb_options, cb_updates, or cb_run. The verb 'Patch' implies modifying options, but there is no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.

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