update_tools_by_id_api_v1_tools_id

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, authentication requirements, side effects). The agent has no information about the tool's impact or prerequisites.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It does not provide enough information to be considered well-structured; it lacks context and fails to earn its place by offering value beyond the name.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, output schema present, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the update behavior, required fields, or return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 only 17% (only id__path has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics, leaving the meaning of fields like 'access_grants', 'content', and 'meta' unexplained. The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters correctly.

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?

Description states 'Update Tools By Id', which clearly indicates the verb (update), resource (tools), and qualifier (by ID). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_tool_access_by_id or update_tools_user_valves, making it only moderately clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify that this updates core tool fields while other tools handle access or valves. The agent receives no context for selection.

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