rm_update_discipline

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent but adds only 'existing' as behavioral context. It does not disclose update semantics such as partial versus full replacement, handling of a missing discipline_id, or permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally concise and easy 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?

The presence of an output schema and only two required scalar parameters makes this low-complexity, and the return value need not be documented. However, the description leaves parameter meaning, usage selection, and mutation behavior implicit, which is only minimally viable for a definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention discipline_id or name at all. An agent gets no additional meaning beyond the raw types and titles in 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 uses the verb 'Update' with the specific resource 'an existing discipline,' which clearly identifies the operation among the discipline CRUD siblings (create, list, delete). It distinguishes this tool from rm_create_discipline and rm_delete_discipline without 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 word 'existing' implies the tool is for modifying an already-created discipline rather than creating or deleting one, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling create/delete tools. The guidance is only implied, with no exclusions or alternative-selection criteria.

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