update_import_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavioral trait: the API expects the entire object to be sent back, signaling non-merge replacement semantics. However, it does not address side effects, failure modes, permissions, or what the response contains.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first states the purpose and the second delivers the workflow. Every word earns its place and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with fully documented schema, the workflow guidance is adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without knowledge of the return value or post-update effects, and the description never explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for new lists.

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% and the config parameter's schema description already states 'Full import list resource object including id,' so the baseline is 3. The description's 'send the whole object back' reinforces that semantics and the fetch-first instruction tells the agent where to obtain the full object, but it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 first sentence, 'Update an existing import list,' pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from create_import_list and delete_import_list in the sibling set. It lacks the explicit sibling naming that would earn a 5, but the purpose is 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?

'Fetch it with get_import_list first, change what you need and send the whole object back' gives a concrete prerequisite and workflow, implying PUT-style full-object replacement rather than patching. It names the complementary tool to use beforehand, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer create_import_list for new resources.

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