Update an agent

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful nuance: unchanged fields are preserved and sending voice replaces the entire voice object. It also states the required authorization scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, each carrying important information: operation, partial-update semantics, voice-replacement behavior, and required scope. No filler or restatement of schema details.

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 rich input schema and annotations, the description captures the essential non-obvious behaviors needed to invoke the tool correctly: patch semantics, voice object replacement, and authorization. It does not describe the success response, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap rather than a correctness blocker.

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 documents every parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-cutting semantics beyond the schema: omitted fields are left unchanged, and voice is replaced as a whole object rather than merged. This clarifies how the top-level and nested parameters behave.

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?

States a specific operation ('Change an agent') and immediately clarifies the partial-update contract ('Only the fields you send are changed; omit the rest'), which distinguishes it from create_agent and delete_agent. This is more than a tautology of the title.

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 gives clear context for use: modify an existing agent, send only the fields to change, and the required agents:write scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_agent/get_agent, but the id requirement and change semantics make the intended use unambiguous.

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