update_alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the two supported update modes and the cooldown difference from the sibling, but it does not state side effects, whether partial updates are allowed, or what happens when only alias_id is supplied.

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?

Two sentences, with the operative behavior first and the cross-reference second. Every clause adds distinct value and there is no filler.

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?

For a small 3-parameter update tool, the description covers the key behavior and the one tricky sibling. It could mention the response/return value since no output schema exists, but that is a minor gap for an otherwise simple mutation.

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 0%, but the description directly maps label to 'rename its label' and active to 'toggle active (enable/disable)'. Only alias_id semantics are left implicit, though the schema's required uuid field makes it self-evident as the target identifier.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an alias'), and enumerates exactly what can be changed: toggle active or rename label. It also disambiguates from update_alias_display_name, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes display-name changes to update_alias_display_name and even notes the separate 24h-cooldown endpoint. This tells the agent when not to use this tool, leaving no ambiguity against the main alternative.

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