paperclip_update_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update,' implying mutation, but does not state whether updates are partial or full, whether changes are reversible, whether specific permissions are required, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and the key action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and usage context.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain partial-update behavior, effects, and what the agent can expect as a return value. It provides none of that, leaving the agent to infer critical usage details from parameters alone.

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 has 100% description coverage, with every parameter including agentId described. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema; the baseline of 3 applies here.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing Paperclip AI agent configuration'), clearly indicating this tool modifies an existing agent rather than creating, deleting, or listing one. However, it is generic and does not explicitly distinguish itself from related mutation siblings like pause_agent, wake_agent, or set_agent_budget, which also modify agent state in some sense.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as paperclip_create_agent, paperclip_pause_agent, or paperclip_wake_agent. The phrase 'existing' implies it is not for creation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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