update_topic

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and read-write behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., id requirement, return value, permissions). It is consistent with annotations but does not enhance transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple update operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return value, idempotency effect, and error cases. Annotations fill some gaps but output behavior remains unspecified.

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 low (33%, only id described). The description mentions updating name or description, which adds some meaning beyond parameter names, but does not explain id or provide constraints like length or format for the string parameters. Insufficient compensation for low 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 'Update a topic's name or description,' specifying the action (update), resource (topic), and mutable fields (name, description). This distinguishes it from create, delete, and get operations among siblings.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or related tools like update_contact_topics. The description is purely functional without context.

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