Update an agent

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint=true; the description adds meaningful context that is consistent with it - PATCH-style merge semantics (omitted fields untouched) and an explicit authorization requirement ('agents' scope). It stops short of describing side effects of mutating live fields like prompt or announcement, but it clearly carries more than the annotation layer.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the merge semantics and the scope requirement are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description leaves the parameter surface entirely undocumented and gives no hint about update scope or effects. The merge/scope notes are useful but insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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% across 7 parameters, including nested objects (prompt, announcement, params) and an enum (communication), so the description carries full responsibility here. It explains only the merge behavior and never mentions what name, active, communication, prompt, or announcement do.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('an agent's fields'), and the resource name alone distinguishes it from update_campaign in the sibling list. It does not explicitly contrast with create_agent/delete_agent, but the mutation target is unambiguous.

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?

Gives real usage guidance for a partial update ('Send only what changes - fields left out are untouched') and states the required 'agents' scope. However, it never says when to prefer this over create_agent/delete_agent or what conditions make an update appropriate, so the when-to-use aspect is only implied.

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