Обновление AI-агента

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

Annotations already disclose mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the key behavioral trait of partial update ('only fields you need change'), but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., implications of changing status, whether other fields are reset) or return value. With annotations covering safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('Обновляет параметры AI-агента'), lists the key fields concisely, and ends with a practical instruction. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a simple update tool with 14 parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and the partial-update pattern, but it does not mention the return value, validation rules, or potential consequences of updates (e.g., whether setting status to 'suspended' has side effects). Given annotations, the missing response format leaves moderate 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?

The input schema covers all 14 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some parameter names and adds 'Pass only fields that need change', which reinforces that all parameters except agent_id are optional, but it does not provide deeper semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'Обновляет параметры AI-агента' (Updates AI agent parameters), specifying the resource and action. It further enumerates the exact fields that can be updated (имя, описание, статус, access_type, пакет токенов, system prompt и настройки модели), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_ai_agent, delete_ai_agent, and get_ai_agent.

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 instruction 'Передавай только поля, которые нужно изменить' (Pass only fields that need to be changed) provides clear guidance on how to use the tool for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions, though the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.

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