cigchat_openai_embeddings_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the scoping requirement, but does not state whether the update overwrites existing fields, whether 'type' is affected, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short and front-loaded, but includes a typo ('embeding') and a bracketed HTTP endpoint that adds little for an AI agent. It is concise but not polished, and the structure is acceptable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description is incomplete for 4 parameters and numerous siblings: it lacks parameter semantics, return behavior, and distinctions from create/import/generate. It only provides a single prerequisite, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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 25% (only 'id' has a trivial description), so the description should compensate. It explains that 'heading' and 'text' are updatable, but says nothing about the 'type' parameter, leaving it unclear. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('embeding heading and text'), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like create/delete/get_info. However, the typo 'embeding' and omission of the 'type' parameter create slight ambiguity about the full scope of the update.

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 mentions the required 'Manage Team' scope, which is a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or import. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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