update_hitl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses the required Proof account and API key setup and warns that start_login does not grant access. It does not detail side effects such as whether channels are replaced wholesale or whether omitted fields are preserved, but the schema already indicates optionality and null-to-clear 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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, and the access warning is separate and unambiguous. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 four-parameter update tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers what is updated and the access requirement. It lacks an explicit note about return values and does not expand the HITL acronym, but that is not critical for invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings. The description adds no new parameter details beyond naming the three changeable categories, keeping it at the baseline.

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 action ('Update a HITL config') and enumerates the mutable fields ('name, channels, or timeout'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling create/list/delete/request tools by focusing only on modifying an existing config.

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 explicit access prerequisites ('needs a Proof account', 'Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart') and calls out that start_login is not a workaround for this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with create_hitl/delete_hitl, but the verb 'Update' plus field list supplies enough usage context.

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