update-training-definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states only that the tool updates a training definition, which is already implied by the name, and gives no insight into whether the update is partial or full, idempotent, how it handles non-existent definitions, or any permissions or side effects. This is completely insufficient for a mutation 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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a single sentence that repeats the tool name, offering no structured information or emphasis on key aspects. The brevity does not serve the agent's understanding; it reflects an absence of meaningful content.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by providing context about the update operation, the expected input structure, and the result. It fails to address any of this, particularly for a tool with a nested 'updates' object, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has two parameters (name and updates) with zero description coverage, and the description provides no elaboration on them. 'name' likely identifies the training definition, and 'updates' appears to be an object with arbitrary properties, but the description does not explain their meaning, structure, or allowed values. The agent receives no semantic clarity beyond the raw parameter names.

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 'Update a training definition' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'update-training-definition', providing no additional specificity about what 'update' entails or what fields are affected. It does not distinguish itself from other update tools beyond the resource name, making it minimally informative.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create-training-definition or delete-training-definition. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool appropriately.

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