Update Agent

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it's a partial update (only passed fields are updated) and that it requires an existing agent id. It does not contradict annotations. The 'nothing is stored' detail is in the flowsYaml parameter description, not here. The description gives some behavioral context beyond annotations, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 compact, two short paragraphs. It leads with the action and endpoint, then gives common uses and a requirement. No fluff, every sentence adds information. Very concise and structured.

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 the core purpose, common uses, and a prerequisite. It references a quickstart for more details. For a tool with 21 parameters, it doesn't enumerate them (schema does), but it provides enough context to guide usage. The absence of an output schema means return values aren't described, but that's not required. It's reasonably complete for an update tool.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning common use cases and the requirement for an agent id. It doesn't explain each parameter, but the schema does. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal extra value, so 3.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing AI agent, mentions the HTTP method (PUT /v2/agents/:agentId), and notes that all fields are optional for partial updates. It gives common use cases, which helps the agent understand the purpose. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from every sibling, the name and description are unambiguous.

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 typical scenarios (tuning prompt, switching responseMode, adjusting cooldownSec) and states the prerequisite of needing an agent id from list or create. It references the quickstart for the full recipe. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives like create or delete, so it's not fully explicit.

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