agent_update

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

Description adds operational context beyond annotations: it clarifies it modifies the agent (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and details specific sub-operations including removal. No contradiction with annotations; destructiveHint=false for address removal is reasonable if addresses are not considered core records.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no filler. Each sentence adds value, efficiently summarizing capabilities and combination possibility.

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's complexity (multiple nested address operations) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main behaviors. Could mention update concurrency or that name/metadata updates are independent of address changes, but overall sufficient.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds usage notes (e.g., 'Use addAddress to attach a new address') but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates an agent's name, metadata, and/or addresses (add, update, delete). It uses specific verbs (update, add, update, delete) and resource (agent), distinguishing it from sibling tools like agent_create, agent_get, agent_delete.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to use address sub-operations (addAddress, updateAddress, deleteAddressId) and notes that multiple changes can be combined. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling agent tools for when to use this vs. create or delete.

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