UpdateMessageClass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It identifies as an 'Update' implying mutation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, whether updates are incremental or full, or what response to expect. The ambiguity with 'e.g. its description' also suggests incomplete specification of updatable fields.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with operation and subject. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 low complexity (3 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and provides usage guidance. The only missing element is a mention of return behavior (e.g., success/failure indication), but this is common and does not significantly impair understanding.

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 100%, so each parameter already has documented meaning. The tool description adds minimal extra value by linking 'description' to the header update example, but does not deepen understanding of transport_request or message_class_name beyond the 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 it updates a message class header (e.g., description). It distinguishes from sibling tools like CreateMessageClassMessage/UpdateMessageClassMessage by explicitly noting their use for individual messages.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool (update header) and when not to (add/change individual messages), offering specific alternative tools.

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