tool_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the key behavioral trait of partial update ('only provided fields are updated'). However, it does not cover other important behaviors such as idempotency, error handling (e.g., missing tool_id), permission requirements, or whether changes are reversible.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first identifies the action and resource, the second explains the partial update behavior. Every word is purposeful; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the tool having 18 parameters (including complex JSON strings) and no output schema, the description is limited to two sentences. It does not address validation of JSON fields, success/failure responses, or constraints (e.g., required permissions, rate limits). The detail in the schema compensates partly, but the description lacks completeness for a complex mutation operation.

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 coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds significant semantic value by clarifying the partial update pattern ('All fields are optional — only provided fields are updated'), which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions. This helps the agent understand that omitted fields remain unchanged.

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 'Update an existing tool in the tool registry', specifying the verb (update) and resource (tool in the tool registry). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_create (create), tool_list (list), and tool_call (call). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the generic 'update' sibling, though the resource specification mitigates confusion.

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 implies when to use this tool (to update a tool's fields, with partial updates supported). It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for creating new tools use tool_create, or for deletion use a delete tool). No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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