Update Dynamic Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing dynamic tool definition', revealing nothing about idempotency, validation, permissions (e.g., adminToken requirement), merge semantics, or return behavior. This is critically insufficient.

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 short sentence, which is concise but at the severe cost of completeness. For a tool with a complex input schema (nested object, four parameters), this level of brevity is inappropriate and leaves critical gaps.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what happens to existing fields, how patches are applied, or what the response contains. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema, and the tool description adds zero explanation for any of the four parameters (adminToken, name, patch, expectedRevision). The agent cannot understand the role of 'patch' (is it a partial update?) or 'expectedRevision' (optimistic concurrency) without external knowledge.

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 action 'update' and the resource 'existing dynamic tool definition'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create' or 'delete' by using a different verb. However, it lacks specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs full replacement).

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 like 'dynamic.tool.enable' or 'dynamic.tool.get'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., tool must exist) or side effects. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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