ruddur_update_waypoint

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds useful behavioral details: the server maps creatorAssessmentConfig to assessmentConfig, and it discloses the required auth scope. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each conveying a distinct fact: the action, the assessmentConfig conditional, and the mapping/scope. No filler or redundancy; the purpose is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter update tool with strong annotations and schema coverage, the description covers ownership, auth requirement, and special field behavior. It omits return-value details, but with no output schema and a straightforward update operation, this is a minor gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds extra value by clarifying that natural Ruddur fields can be passed at the top level and reiterating the assessmentConfig rule, which helps the agent structure the payload correctly.

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 opens with 'Update a creator-owned Waypoint', clearly identifying the verb (update) and resource (Waypoint). The qualifier 'creator-owned' scopes the operation to the creator's own waypoints, which distinguishes it from other update tools in the sibling list.

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 explicit usage context: the required scope 'content.manage' and the rule to include assessmentConfig only for assessment-style waypoints. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over, say, ruddur_update_waypoint_placement, so some exclusions are missing.

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