Update Macro

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

The description adds critical behavioral detail: 'if you include `actions`, the entire actions array is replaced — you cannot append individual actions.' This goes beyond the annotations' idempotency and open-world hints, alerting the agent to a common pitfall. It also clarifies the partial-update semantics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and purpose. The caution about `actions` is necessary and positioned prominently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a partial update with 6 params and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior, including the actions replacement. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but the annotations and schema cover the safety profile sufficiently.

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 already provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a general statement that all body fields are optional, which applies across parameters, and restates the actions replacement nuance already present in the schema. This is useful but incremental.

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 'Partial update of a macro by ID' along with the HTTP endpoint, making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes this from sibling tools that create, get, or delete macros.

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?

It specifies that all body fields are optional and only supplied fields are modified, providing clear context for when to use this partial update. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which prevents a 5.

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