update_ui_action

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the tool's mutation and safety profile are known. The description adds the SCRIPTING_ENABLED prerequisite, which is useful behavioral context, but no additional detail about side effects or error conditions.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. The key action and prerequisite are front-loaded.

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 update operation with well-annotated safety and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. However, the nested 'fields' object lacks detailed structure, and there's no output schema, so a bit more context about return values would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (sys_id and fields). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing UI Action'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_ui_action or get_ui_action. The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states a precondition (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) and implies the tool is for modifying existing UI Actions. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes the appropriate use case clear.

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