update_manager

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing manager' and omits critical traits such as whether it performs a partial update, requires all fields, what authentication is needed, or what response to expect. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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, stating the core action directly. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is so minimal that it provides little beyond the tool name.

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 the high complexity (25 parameters), absence of annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain update semantics, permission requirements, behavior of omitted fields, or return values, making it insufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 descriptions for all 25 parameters, including types, enums, and per-field explanations. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already handles this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb 'Update' and resource 'an existing manager', distinguishing itself from sibling tools like create_manager, get_manager, list_managers, and delete_manager by conveying the specific action. It lacks detail about what aspects can be updated, but the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_manager, nor are any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., the manager must already exist). The description gives no context for distinguishing update scenarios from create or delete scenarios.

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