update_request

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden for behavioral context. It only states 'update' without specifying whether it performs a partial update or full replacement, what fields are allowed to be changed, or any side effects like versioning or relationships.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, which is positive for brevity but detrimental to completeness. Important context is omitted, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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 tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, a description covering only basic purpose is insufficient. Missing details such as partial vs full update, return value, error handling, or permission requirements reduce completeness significantly.

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 89%, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond 'new' prefixes in schema descriptions. For a high-coverage schema, baseline 3 is appropriate, though the description could highlight that all fields except requestId are optional.

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 request' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (request), indicating modification of an existing entity. It is not a tautology but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like create_request_in_collection or delete_request.

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_request_in_collection for new requests or execute_request for running requests. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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