studio_update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (a write) and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the revision prerequisite hints at optimistic-concurrency control, and the 'no private chain of thought' rule is a real content constraint. It still omits what happens on a stale revision or whether writes append vs replace.

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, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then a content prohibition, then the prerequisite. No wasted wording. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

This is a complex write tool with 12 parameters, deeply nested objects (checks, findings, journeys, pages, confidence), enums, and no output schema. The description is far too thin to guide correct construction of these structures; it does not explain any of the nested object shapes or the enum-driven status fields.

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?

With 12 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, but it only touches a few concepts (findings, progress, decision rationale) and the revision prerequisite. Core parameters like runId, runId format, pages, checks, journeys, status, blockers, and confidence are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific verb and resources: 'Record actual test observations, findings, progress, and concise decision rationale.' This is far clearer than the generic name 'studio_update' and helps distinguish it from siblings like studio_snapshot or studio_steer. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Record actual test observations, findings, progress' and a prerequisite is given ('Requires current run revision'), plus a content restriction ('Do not provide private chain of thought'). But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like studio_feedback or studio_steer, leaving routing to inference.

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