quire.updateChat

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true already indicates safe repeated calls. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it updates properties. It does not contradict annotations. Given that annotations cover the key behavioral aspect, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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 that efficiently states the purpose and identification methods. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

With 12 parameters fully described in the schema and annotations indicating idempotency, the description is sufficiently complete for an update operation. Though there is no output schema, the purpose and parameter semantics are clear. Minor gap: no mention of typical responses or side effects, but not necessary for this 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 a chat channel's properties') and identifies two distinct identification methods (by OID or by owner type/ID and chat ID). It distinguishes from siblings like createChat, deleteChat, and getChat.

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 explicitly explains the two ways to specify the target chat channel (by OID or by ownerType+ownerId+chatId), which guides the agent in choosing the correct parameters. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or mention alternatives, but among siblings there is no alternative for updating.

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