update_agent

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it clarifies identifier and payload usage, it does not mention side effects such as whether the payload merges with or replaces existing agent settings, what happens if both agent_name and agent_id are provided, or whether specific permissions are required. The description only states 'Update an agent' without explaining the update semantics.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Update an agent.' It efficiently packs usage instructions and an example without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 gives sufficient context for typical updates, including a realistic example and payload guidance. It does not, however, discuss the response format (no output schema) or edge cases like agent not found, or precedence when both agent_name and agent_id are given. Given the flexible payload (additionalProperties), the description provides a solid baseline, but these gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It directly explains all three parameters: agent_name (with a concrete example), agent_id (as an alternative), and payload (with example fields 'instructions, tools, description, etc.' and a full JSON example). This is excellent compensation for the bare schema.

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 'Update an agent' with a specific verb and resource, and gives an example using 'TimeWeatherAgent' to illustrate the target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_agent or delete_agent, and the example clarifies the intended operation.

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 for when to use this tool: to modify an agent's instructions, tools, description, etc. It explains how to identify the agent (by name or ID) and includes a concrete example for updating instructions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like update_agent_chat_starter_settings, though the focused example implies general-purpose updates.

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