update_pan_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing attributes not mentioned in the update, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is limited. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic action and target.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context: what constitutes a 'pan element' versus other resources, what the update operation actually changes, what permissions are needed, or what happens on success/failure. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently use this tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with their types and basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how elementType affects which other parameters are relevant) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('element or folder in Private API Network'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_api', 'update_collection', or 'update_collection_folder', which appear to perform similar update operations on different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling update tools (update_api, update_collection, update_collection_folder, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool for updating 'pan elements' versus those other resources. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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