update_operator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavioral constraint: 'Must be called by the sponsoring Authority (or any Authority).' It also implies a mutation by 'Update,' and the schema's 'leave empty to keep current' notes add clarity about non-destructive partial updates. It could mention side effects or reversibility more explicitly, but the key permission context is present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete usage triggers and an authorization note. Every sentence contributes useful information, with 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?

The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, and who may call it. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. A slight gap is the lack of explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the existing-entry framing largely covers that.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters well. The description adds narrative context for service_url and display_name via the scenarios, but it does not meaningfully exceed the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Update an existing Operator's registry entry.' It clearly distinguishes this from register_operator and deregister_operator by emphasizing 'existing' and by listing concrete scenarios like moving to a new MCP endpoint or changing a display name.

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 gives explicit contexts for use: endpoint changes, display name changes, and registration corrections. It also states the authentication requirement. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast it with register_operator/deregister_operator, so it stops short of a full 5.

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