manus_agent_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'update', indicating mutation, but fails to disclose side effects, permissions needed, error behavior, or what happens if the agent_id does not exist.

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 that is front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no fluff or unnecessary words, making it highly concise and easily parsed.

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 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very minimal. It does not explain return behavior, error handling, or parameter details beyond what is in the schema, leaving the tool underspecified for an agent's decision-making.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions updatable fields 'nickname and/or description' which map to 'nickname' and 'about' params, but does not explain 'about' means description, nor does it describe the required 'agent_id' parameter or value constraints.

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 states the verb 'Update', the resource 'agent', and the specific updatable fields 'nickname and/or description'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manus_agent_list and manus_agent_detail which are read-only.

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 implies usage for updating an agent's nickname or description but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. It is adequate but lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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