update_hitl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a non-obvious auth behavior — that this tool requires PROOF_API_KEY and that start_login does NOT grant access — which prevents the agent from pursuing the wrong auth path. It still doesn't say what a destructive update actually destroys (e.g., channel replacement semantics).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in one short sentence, followed by a clearly separated ACCESS block. Every element is relevant; the field enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema but harmless.

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 destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing piece (auth requirements) and needs no return-value explanation since there is no output schema. It could say more about the effect of the update, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Parameter description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, name ("null to clear"), channels, and timeout_seconds ranges. The description only restates the updatable fields at a high level, adding no syntax, format, or replace-vs-merge semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update a HITL config") and enumerates the mutable fields (name, channels, timeout), which plainly distinguishes it from create_hitl, get_hitl, list_hitls, and delete_hitl. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of 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?

The ACCESS block gives a real usage prerequisite (Proof account + PROOF_API_KEY) not found in the schema, which helps. However, there is no guidance on when to update vs. create/delete a HITL config or whether the change replaces or merges existing values, leaving usage largely implied.

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