sieve_script_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the need for alias credentials, but does not explain side effects, whether updates are overwrites, activation behavior, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with no fluff or repetition. It fronts the core purpose, but it is so terse that it omits necessary behavioral and usage context. Efficient but not optimally sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain return values, behaviors, or edge cases. This is a moderate-complexity tool that needs more context than a one-liner.

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?

The input schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%). The description adds no param-specific information beyond the credential prerequisite, which is already implied by the schema fields. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Update'), the resource ('Sieve script for an alias'), and scopes it to aliases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like domain_sieve_update. The specific verb+resource+scope meets the highest bar.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The credential requirement is a prerequisite, not usage context. It does not mention when to prefer this over domain_sieve_update or other Sieve tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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