update_optimization

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retries, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether other optimization properties are affected), or error conditions. With annotations covering idempotency, the description adds little beyond the basic action, but doesn't contradict annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 tool has an output schema (implying return values are documented elsewhere), annotations cover idempotency, and the schema describes parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks context on permissions, side effects, or error handling, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 0%, but the schema itself includes descriptions for 'optimizationId' and 'name' parameters. The description mentions updating the name, implying the 'name' parameter, but doesn't add meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format constraints or examples). With schema doing the work, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('name of an optimization'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_optimization' and 'delete_optimization' by focusing on name updates, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_backtest' or 'update_project'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing optimization), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_backtest' or 'update_project'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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