builds__update

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

Annotations already confirm idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the PATCH method and the common encryption compliance use case. No contradictions, and it accurately reflects the tool's behavior.

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 sentence followed by the HTTP path. It is extremely concise and front-loads the essential information without any wasted words.

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 an update tool with no output schema, the description could mention the return value (e.g., the updated build). It covers the main use case but lacks detail on other possible fields (e.g., expired) and the response format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meanings. However, the description mentions the most important attribute (usesNonExemptEncryption) which provides slight extra value, but overall does not significantly enhance schema details.

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 the resource 'build', and provides a specific common use case: setting usesNonExemptEncryption compliance for distribution. It also includes the HTTP method and path, which distinguishes it from other builds-related tools.

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 indicates the primary use case (encryption compliance) but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives from the sibling list. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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