update_agent_chat_starter_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the fields to update but does not mention possible side effects, whether settings are replaced or merged, required permissions, or any preconditions. The update action is vague regarding its impact on existing chat starter settings.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and field list. Every word adds value, 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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, an output schema, or schema descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps. It lacks information about return values, error scenarios, whether both identifiers are accepted mutually exclusively, and the effect on existing quick_prompts (e.g., append vs replace). The description is too brief for the tool's complexity.

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 description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema: it specifies the structure of quick_prompts as an array of {title, prompt} and explains that either agent_id or agent_name can be used. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this information is essential and largely compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the tool updates chat starter settings and lists the specific fields (welcome_message, quick_prompts). The verb 'update' and resource 'chat starter settings' are specific, and the name aligns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_agent_chat_starter_settings, though the action is inherently distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'Use agent_id or agent_name,' which is a parameter selection hint rather than contextual usage guidance. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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