update_interaction

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the fact that it updates metadata. It does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or any nuances beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the essential purpose. No redundant information is present, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Despite the minimal description, the tool is straightforward (update metadata with optional fields) and the schema covers parameter semantics. The lack of output schema is acceptable. Slightly docked for not explicitly stating the 'NULL=don't update' pattern, though it is in the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents all parameters with their meanings (including NULL=don't update). The description does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 interaction metadata' clearly states the action (update) and resource (interaction metadata). The name 'update_interaction' is self-explanatory and distinguishes from siblings like add_interaction and delete_interaction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_interaction or get_interactions_by_function. The context implies it is for updating existing interactions, but no when-not or alternative references are provided.

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