update_conversion_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It only states 'update' without addressing potential side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or how partial updates are handled. There is no contradiction, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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, extremely concise and front-loaded. It avoids redundancy, though it may be too terse to be fully useful. Still, it is properly sized for a simple update operation and earns its place without wasted words.

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?

With no output schema and a mutation tool, the description should provide more context such as how to identify the conversion action, behavior of the updates object, or any limitations. It only states the basic action, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% since all three parameters (customerId, conversionId, updates) have descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 'Update an existing conversion action' uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('conversion action'), and the word 'existing' clearly distinguishes it from creating new conversion actions (sibling: create_conversion_action). This fully clarifies the tool's core function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for modifying actions created previously, nor does it direct users to get_conversions to obtain the necessary conversionId. The word 'existing' implies exclusion of creation but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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