update_analysis_design

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-update behavior, return value (updated dict or error dict), and the status-change constraint. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, permissions, or validation behavior. It adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Each sentence adds meaningful information: what it does, partial-update semantics, and the status-change exclusion. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure, but it does mention error dict. It explains partial update and design_id requirement implicitly. It also navigates the sibling tool space by pointing to transition_design_status. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., design must already exist) or field constraints, but the core usage is sufficiently covered.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'Only provided fields are updated,' which gives a general semantics for all parameters but does not explain any individual field. The schema itself has descriptive names and defaults, but the description adds minimal value beyond that. For a tool with 11 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 opens with 'Partially update an existing analysis design,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from create_analysis_design and transition_design_status, the latter explicitly mentioned as a separate path for status changes. Sibling tool names reinforce the differentiation.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need to update an existing design without changing status. It explicitly states 'Status changes must go through transition_design_status,' giving an explicit alternative. However, it does not fully enumerate all situations (e.g., when to create vs update), but the partial-update phrasing and exclusion provide strong context.

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