update_ui_action

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the scripting requirement as behavioral context, but does not elaborate on side effects or other traits. It adds one piece of value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and structured efficiently.

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 simple mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It includes a key requirement but could mention that the update is an in-place modification of the specific UI Action identified by sys_id.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides (sys_id and fields). No parameter semantics are elaborated.

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 'Update an existing UI Action', which is specific and uses a verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like create_ui_action, get_ui_action, and list_ui_actions.

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), providing context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use it, but the requirement is a useful guideline.

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