builds__update

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the distribution-compliance context but does not disclose additional behaviors such as response details or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and endpoint, followed by the most relevant purpose. It contains no filler or redundant 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?

The nested body structure is fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description provides the real-world motivation for the update, which is helpful for selection. It could mention other updatable fields like expired, but the schema already covers them.

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 semantic meaning by identifying usesNonExemptEncryption as the key compliance field, which goes beyond the raw schema names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a build') and adds the common use case of setting usesNonExemptEncryption compliance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools like builds__get and builds__list.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool ('most commonly to set usesNonExemptEncryption compliance so it can be distributed'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the endpoint and common use case give sufficient guidance.

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