parse_update_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the schema, requires master key, and cannot delete fields. While it doesn't describe side effects on existing data, it clearly communicates the key behavioral constraints.

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, with two sentences that front-load the main action and resource, followed by a limitation/alternative and an auth note. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with complex nested schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, limitations, and an alternative. It doesn't mention return values, but the schema makes the request structure clear, and the description is sufficiently detailed for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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?

The description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'fields' is for adding/modifying and 'classLevelPermissions' is for updating CLP. It also clarifies the limitation on deletion, which affects how the fields parameter should be used. The schema itself has thorough descriptions for nested properties, so this complements rather than repeats.

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 modifies an existing class schema, adding fields or updating CLP, and distinguishes itself from sibling tool parse_delete_field by explicitly noting it cannot delete fields. The verb 'Modifica' and resource 'schema de una clase existente' make the purpose specific and 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use (adding fields or updating CLP) and when not to use (cannot delete fields, pointing to parse_delete_field as the alternative). Also mentions the master key requirement, which is a crucial prerequisite.

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