qui_update_external_program

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or idempotency. It only says to call the PUT endpoint, revealing nothing about the update semantics or consequences.

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 with clear, direct instructions on how to call the endpoint. Every word earns its place, and no unnecessary detail is included.

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 generic schema and no annotations, the description provides essential request-structure guidance but is incomplete: it does not indicate required fields (e.g., the id path parameter), what the request body should contain, or how the response relates to the output schema.

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 is a generic 'arguments' object with 0% coverage, but the description compensates by explicitly stating where path variables, query values, and body go. This adds meaningful structure to an otherwise opaque schema, though specific field names are not mentioned.

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 clearly identifies the specific endpoint (PUT /external-programs/{id}) and implies an update operation on external programs. It distinguishes from sibling tools by the HTTP method and resource, but does not explicitly state 'update' beyond the endpoint name.

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 the create, delete, or list external program tools. It only describes how to structure the request, not the use case or alternatives.

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