cigchat_flow_update_shortcut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is useful auth context. However, it does not mention the effects of the update, error behavior, or idempotency, leaving the mutation consequences implicit.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and endpoint, the second gives the auth requirement. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a shortcut is, what fields can be updated, or what response to expect. The auth scope is helpful, but major usage and semantic gaps remain.

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 only 33% (only 'id' has a trivial example). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what 'name' or 'value' represent, their optionality, or how they relate to the shortcut. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but did not.

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 'Update a shortcut' with the specific endpoint, establishing the verb (update) and resource (shortcut). It distinguishes from sibling create/delete/get shortcut tools by the operation type.

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 implies usage when updating an existing shortcut, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., shortcut must exist), and no guidance on when to use create/delete instead. The context is implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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