Update Tool

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

The description simply states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether changes are immediately applied, if they require re-authentication, or if they may invalidate cached data. The annotation openWorldHint: true indicates possible undocumented side effects, but the description adds no context about them.

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 extremely concise (8 words) and immediately conveys the core purpose. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, it could benefit from a second sentence to add context without being verbose. It is not wasteful but slightly under-specified.

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 has 7 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after updating (e.g., return value), how the 'config' object relates to other parameters, or any side effects. The agent is left without enough guidance to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no extra context beyond the schema, such as which parameters are commonly used together or constraints on values. It is adequate but not enhanced.

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 'Update an existing tool integration configuration' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (tool integration configuration). It also implies the tool is for already-existing items, distinguishing it from create operations. However, it lacks specificity about what 'tool integration configuration' encompasses and does not differentiate from other update tools like neuron_update_bot, though the sibling context helps.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., neuron_create_tool for creating, neuron_delete_tool for deletion, or neuron_test_tool for testing). It also fails to specify prerequisites or conditions (e.g., tool must exist).

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