update_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It explains that intents are living documents and gives common triggers, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether the update is atomic. The description is adequate but lacks depth about error states or confirmation.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a brief intro, a paragraph with usage triggers, and a note about intentId. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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's straightforward nature (updating fields) and high schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It lacks detail about return values or error handling, but since there is no output schema, and the action is simple, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that intentId defaults to the active intent and provides rationale for updating intents. However, for most parameters, the schema already describes them well; the description does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema except for the default behavior.

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 tool's verb (update) and resource (intent), lists the updatable fields (title, description, scope, constraints), and distinguishes its purpose as reformulating intents as understanding evolves. This is specific and differentiates it from creation or completion tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when understanding evolves, with common triggers listed. It also clarifies the behavior when intentId is omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like create_and_activate_intent or complete_intent, leaving some ambiguity.

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