Update Audit Title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it changes the title, but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it overwrite the previous title permanently? Is there a revision history?), idempotency, or what happens if the audit does not exist.

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 with a redundant 'Data Tool:' prefix, making it efficient but lacking structure. It could be improved by removing the prefix and adding bullet points or formatting for readability.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, validation rules (e.g., title length beyond schema maxLength), or error conditions, leaving the agent with significant gaps for correct 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It offers no additional formatting, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 the verb 'changes' and the resource 'title of an existing website audit report'. It is straightforward and distinguishes the tool from sibling read and delete tools, though it does not explicitly highlight that it updates an existing audit rather than creates a new one.

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, such as when an audit must exist or what prerequisites are needed. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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