update_tool

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the operation creates a draft and does not replace the current approved version immediately, indicating a non-destructive mutation. However, it does not clarify whether previous drafts are overwritten, permission requirements, or rate limits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given moderate complexity, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and usage scenarios but lacks parameter details and deeper behavioral context (e.g., effect on existing drafts). The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return value clarity.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'updated code' and 'changelog', covering new_code and changelog implicitly. The required parameters tool_id and version are not described at all, leaving the agent to infer from context (tool_id likely identifies the tool, version likely a version string).

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 explicitly states 'Create a new draft version of an existing ToolForge tool with updated code and a changelog', which clearly identifies the verb (create), resource (draft version), and specific actions (updated code, changelog). It distinguishes from siblings like approve_tool and register_tool by emphasizing 'draft' and 'without replacing the current approved version'.

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 explicit scenarios: 'when a tool needs a bug fix, improvement, new behavior, or compatibility update'. It also implies exclusivity by stating 'without replacing the current approved version immediately', but does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternative tools like rollback_tool.

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