Update IT Glue Configuration

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds useful context: it specifies the return value ('The updated configuration') and mentions the 'response_format' parameter for output control. This enhances transparency beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail side effects like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by an 'Args' list and return note. It's appropriately sized for a tool with many parameters, though the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more front-loaded with key usage information.

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's complexity (14 parameters, mutation operation) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output schema, so the return value description ('The updated configuration') is minimal. It doesn't explain error cases, prerequisites, or how it interacts with siblings, leaving the agent to rely on annotations and schema for full context.

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 the schema fully documents all 14 parameters. The description lists parameters in the 'Args' section but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., it repeats 'Configuration ID (required)' similar to schema's 'unique ID'). No additional context like default behaviors or interdependencies is provided, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing configuration in IT Glue'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'itglue_create_configuration' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools (e.g., itglue_update_contact).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing configuration ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from other update tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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