accessibility_declarations__update

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with the description. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the basic action, such as side effects, authorization requirements, or the idempotent nature. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with the HTTP path in brackets. It is concise and contains no superfluous 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 nested input schema and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the response behavior (e.g., returns the updated declaration or nothing) or the structure of the body parameter beyond what the schema already covers. Annotations fill some gaps but more context would be beneficial.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('accessibility declaration'), and includes the HTTP method and path for specificity. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'accessibility_declarations__create' and 'accessibility_declarations__delete'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create or delete). The purpose is implied by the name and description, but without further context the agent may not know prerequisites or exclusions.

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