update_optimization

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

The annotations include idempotentHint:true, which already indicates idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the update action, which is consistent. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description is adequate but not enriching.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's function for a simple field update. It does not mention output or side effects, but given the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature, it is mostly complete. Slight improvement possible by noting idempotency or response details.

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?

The schema has nested property descriptions for optimizationId and name, so parameters are explained. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema. Given the schema coverage is effectively high (via nested properties), a baseline of 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?

The description 'Update the name of an optimization' clearly specifies the action (update) and resource (optimization name). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_backtest or create_optimization, relying on the tool name for disambiguation.

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 (e.g., create_optimization, delete_optimization). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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