update_schema

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Update'—for example, it does not clarify what gets overwritten, what happens to missing fields, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 extremely terse and contains no filler; every word adds meaning. It is front-loaded with the key action and subject, though it lacks any structural breakdown of behavior or parameters.

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?

This is a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no description of return values, error conditions, config structure, or side effects. A single sentence is far too little context for an agent to safely invoke it, especially given the required nested config object.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the six parameters. The required fields scheme_id, name, and config are entirely unexplained, and the boolean flags fix and test are also left to the agent to infer.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('extraction schema'), and the scope ('existing'). This distinguishes it from create_schema and get_schema at a basic level, though it doesn't mention which fields are modifiable.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus create_schema, delete_schema, or get_schema. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the schema needing to exist or how this differs from updating other resources like configs.

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