update_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Update a stage' and gives the HTTP method, which implies mutation but does not explain whether the update is partial or full, what effects it has on existing stage data, or the response shape. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and endpoint are stated efficiently. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful behavioral context, so it is not maximally effective despite being concise.

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 5-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It lacks update semantics, usage context, and any indication of response behavior. The agent would need to infer most practical details from the schema and endpoint.

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 80%, and the schema already documents name, extraBody, extraQuery, and orderWeight. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description provides no extra context about how these parameters interact with the update operation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update a stage', which distinguishes it from create, get, and list operations on stages. Including the HTTP endpoint adds precision. It is not a 5 because it gives no indication of which stage attributes are updatable, though the schema partially covers that.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_stage, get_stage, or list_stages. The description only names the action, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used to modify an existing stage. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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