Edit a tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that validation runs afterwards ('Validates afterwards'), which is useful, and clarifies that modelDisplayName/modelDescription are routing keys. However, it doesn't mention side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or what happens if validation fails.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the core action and lists all editable aspects without filler. It could be better structured (e.g., grouping related fields) but is still concise and information-dense.

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 13-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description gives a high-level overview but does not explain several parameters, validation failure behavior, or how to target the tool file reliably. An agent would likely need more detail to invoke it correctly.

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 low (23%), and the description partially compensates by mapping fields like 'inputs (set / add / remove)' to setInputs/addInputs/removeInputs and explaining modelDescription/modelDisplayName. But it does not clarify most parameters (e.g., connectionReference, operationId, rename semantics), leaving gaps for an agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('an existing tool file') and enumerates the editable fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cs_add_tool (create) and cs_edit_topic/cs_edit_knowledge (different components).

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 phrase 'an existing tool file' implies this is for modifying an already-created tool, but it never explicitly states when to use this over cs_add_tool or other alternatives. No when-not or alternative routing is provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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