update_interface

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not state that only specified fields are updated, how apply_immediately affects runtime state, or whether changes can be reverted. Annotations indicate idempotency and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds little beyond the fact that it's an update.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the operation without any unnecessary words or repetition of schema details. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (10 parameters, mutation, output schema) and the existence of apply_interface_changes and search_interface_configs siblings, the description is underequipped. It omits key context such as whether updates are partial/full replacement and how changes are applied, leaving the agent to infer critical workflow steps.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The description itself contributes no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource ('existing interface') identified by ID, which aligns with the tool's name and distinguishes it from other resource-specific update tools in the sibling list. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling update tools, but the resource type and 'by ID' qualifier provide sufficient clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not mention that interface_id can be obtained from search_interface_configs, nor does it advise on applying changes (e.g., via apply_interface_changes), which is relevant given the apply_immediately parameter and siblings.

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