update_instrument_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the critical behavior that only non-null fields are sent and that null fields are left unchanged. It also notes admin-only access. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the key behavioral trait is well disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and behavior. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, admin restriction, and update semantics. Given that the input schema is well-documented and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for an update operation, though it could mention prerequisites or error handling.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that optional parameters (despite anyOf null) are only updated if non-null, clarifying the intended behavior beyond the schema definition.

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 explicitly states the action ('update'), resource ('dimension/domain on instrument'), and includes 'admin only' to clarify scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_instrument_domain (create) and delete_instrument_domain (delete).

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 clear guidance: only non-null fields are updated, and to clear a field, use the web interface. While it doesn't name an alternative tool explicitly, the instruction is practical and informs the agent when not to use this tool.

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