update_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Modify' without explaining whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to unspecified fields, or why sessionId is required. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It wastes no words, but it could be slightly more structured to include key usage context without becoming verbose.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify update semantics (partial vs. full), the role of the required sessionId, or any error/return behavior, which are essential for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as every parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'New name', 'New tool list', 'New persona'). The tool description adds only a high-level mapping to 'definition, skills, or preferences' but no additional syntax or format details, so it meets the baseline for schema-backed 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 uses the specific verb 'Modify' with the resource 'existing agent' and scopes it to 'definition, skills, or preferences', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_agent and remove_agent. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of the tool's purpose.

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 such as create_agent or remove_agent. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the agent must already exist), nor does it exclude cases where other tools would be more appropriate.

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