update_protocol_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or whether the update overwrites or appends. The existence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return value details, but the description is insufficient for full 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?

The description is a single sentence with 12 words, directly stating the action, resource, and method. It is front-loaded and concise with no superfluous 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, making it adequate but not complete for a simple update tool.

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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema field descriptions. It provides no additional constraints or context for the parameters.

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 specifies the action ('update'), the resource ('description of an existing protocol'), and the identifier ('by its protocol ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_protocol_title' and 'create_protocol'.

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 usage for updating only the description field, contrasted with 'update_protocol_title', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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