update_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: description re-runs scaffolding, prompt sets directly, tools are fully replaced. It lacks details on permissions, atomicity, or immediate effect, but is sufficient 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?

The description is concise: a one-line summary followed by clear bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 covers all parameters and their behavioral traits. However, it lacks information about the return value (no output schema) and does not mention error conditions or side effects on ongoing runs.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining the effect of each parameter (e.g., 'triggers re-scaffolding', 'replacement list'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it updates an agent's name, prompt, or tools, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_agent (creation) and delete_agent (deletion).

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 explains when to use each parameter (e.g., description triggers re-scaffolding, prompt sets directly, tools replaces list). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives beyond the parameter behaviors.

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