update_aux

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description should clarify update semantics (whether partial or full replacement), but it merely repeats the title. No information about what happens to unspecified fields or how the variable is identified (via name) is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no word waste, making it maximally concise. It does not, however, provide the depth needed for a complex tool with nested objects.

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 tool's complexity—8 parameters including a nested graphical_function object, and an output schema—a one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks information about update behavior, required context (model_id/workspace_id), and relationship to add_aux.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including detailed explanations for model_id and workspace_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 states 'Update auxiliary variable fields' with a specific verb 'update' and resource 'auxiliary variable fields', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like add_aux and update_flow. However, it does not explicitly mention that it modifies existing variables as opposed to creating them, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 alternatives like add_aux or update_stock. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the variable existing, or the distinction between creating and updating.

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