Update a scout

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that changes propagate to every company the scout runs on, that the scope (apply_to) is immutable, and what each state value actually does operationally. The return shape is also noted, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the mutable field list and the no-op-on-omitted-fields rule, with no filler sentences. It is dense — a long run-on clause chain — but every clause carries distinct information.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers propagation scope, immutability of scope, state semantics, return value, and the delete alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by defining the three state transitions, including the non-obvious 'confirmed' preview-workflow meaning, and by clarifying that apply_to is out of scope. Minor gap: selected_company_ids replacement semantics are only in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb (Changes) and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable, then names the sibling tool for deletion. An agent can distinguish this from heliyos_scouts_create and heliyos_scouts_delete without inspecting schemas.

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?

Clearly states patch semantics ('what you leave out is kept') and routes deletion to heliyos_scouts_delete. It does not explicitly say when to update versus recreating a scout, so a small inference remains, but the primary alternatives are covered.

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