Update Study

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

Annotations already signal danger (destructiveHint=true) and mutation, so the description's main contribution is 'owner-controlled' (authorization context), the valid state set ('active, paused or archived'), and the optimistic concurrency behavior ('Stale versions fail'). These add meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the state enumeration and the most important behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive 7-parameter update tool, the description covers the essential operational constraints: owner authorization, valid states, and version staleness. The output schema exists, so return values need no description. It could mention side effects on existing study data, but the combination of annotations and description is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 14%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the `state` parameter values and the `version` concurrency requirement, but it does not explain the semantics of `max_attempts`, `max_concurrent`, `name`, or `question`. Those names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description leaves the low-coverage burden partially unmet.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update owner-controlled study settings.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by restricting to owner-controlled settings and study-level updates, which is not ambiguous with create_study, get_study, update_run, or other sibling operations.

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 when to use the tool (updating settings for a study you own) and gives a key precondition: 'Stale versions fail.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when updating runs or recipe drafts instead of studies.

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