edgegate_update_eval_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a full replacement (not a patch), that it only works on drafts, that published versions return 409, that the version remains a draft after the operation, and that workspace write access is required. These are crucial behavioral traits.

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 action, followed by a critical contingency and then post-conditions/permissions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, failure mode (409), state after operation, and permissions. It could additionally mention that the operation is destructive and irreversible, but 'Replace ALL cases' implies that. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the 'cases' parameter has a description). The tool description compensates by explaining that the cases parameter must be a full replacement list, not a patch. However, the other parameters (workspace_id, eval_set_id, version_id) are not described in the text, relying on their self-explanatory names and schema types.

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 tool replaces all cases of a draft eval-set version, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like edgegate_new_eval_set_version and edgegate_publish_eval_set by noting that it leaves the version as a draft and does not publish.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (only on draft versions) and provides a clear alternative: if a 409 occurs because the version is published, users must first fork a fresh draft with edgegate_new_eval_set_version. It also mentions that publishing is a separate step, guiding the user to edgegate_publish_eval_set.

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