update_quality_definitions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the important update model: full definition objects are required and only minSize, maxSize, or preferredSize should change. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, validation behavior, or idempotency, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every sentence contributes either the update scope or the required payload pattern.

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 single-parameter update tool, the description captures the invocation pattern and teaches the correct data source. It lacks explicit return or error behavior, but there is no output schema and that information is not critical for making the call 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%, but the schema only says 'Full quality definition objects including id.' The description adds workflow meaning: retrieve objects from list_quality_definitions and alter minSize, maxSize, or preferredSize. This goes beyond the schema's property description.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('quality definitions'), and narrows the action to 'size limits' with named fields minSize, maxSize, and preferredSize. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_quality_profile or update_custom_format.

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?

Provides clear context: instructs the agent to send full objects from list_quality_definitions and modify only the size-related fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is unambiguous.

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