Update Saved Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that changes are selective and preserve unchanged settings, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. The response format is provided but not what 'status' values mean or failure modes.

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 clear summary, an Args section with per-parameter explanations, and a Response Format section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is somewhat long due to the parameter list, that is necessary given the 10 parameters. No unnecessary fluff.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, usage, parameters with examples, and response format. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention edge cases or permission requirements, but for a typical update operation it is sufficient.

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. It does so thoroughly by listing each parameter with a meaningful description, including examples for time ranges (e.g., '-24h@h'). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, making it clear what each parameter controls.

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's function: 'Update an existing saved search's configuration including query, scheduling, and other properties.' It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (saved search), and distinguishes itself from create/delete siblings by emphasizing selective modification while preserving unchanged settings.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to modify an existing saved search without recreating it. It mentions selective modification and preserving unchanged settings, which clarifies usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_saved_search or delete_saved_search, though the distinction is inferable.

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