update_va_topic

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description only adds '[Write]', which is redundant given 'update' in the name and readOnlyHint=false. It does not explain partial update behavior, field effects, or response format.

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 very concise (one sentence plus marker) but lacks valuable content. While not verbose, it omits important details that would improve clarity. The '[Write]' marker is unnecessary given annotations.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description fails to mention return value or behavior when fields are omitted. It does not clarify that the topic must exist (versus creating). Given the complexity of the 'fields' object, more context is needed.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides ('Fields to update (name, description, active, etc.)' is already in the schema). Baseline for high coverage is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 action (update) and resource (Virtual Agent topic properties), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling update tools like 'update_record' or 'update_va_topic' (though the name helps). The '[Write]' marker adds no additional clarity.

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 'create_va_topic' or 'get_va_topic'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or related tools.

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