Update A Response

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

The description notes the tool is a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object. This adds context beyond annotations that already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). No contradictions.

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 somewhat wordy, with redundancy (e.g., 'Update a Response. Use this to update...') and a potential error ('Inspections'). It front-loads the purpose but could be more streamlined.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the basic operation, required parameters, endpoint, and return behavior. It lacks explicit error handling or success conditions but is sufficient for a simple update tool.

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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond naming required parameters, which are already marked required in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for optional fields.

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 tool updates a Response and specifies it modifies existing resources. However, it incorrectly refers to 'Inspections' instead of 'Responses', which may cause confusion.

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 implies usage via 'update an existing' but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_a_response or delete_a_response. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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