update_access_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update an in-progress access request,' which implies mutation but doesn't disclose permissions, whether the update is partial or full, how custom_meta behaves, or the response. The 'in-progress' constraint is useful but insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence with no fluff and front-loads the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise, though it omits necessary detail. Still, it earns its place by providing the core purpose and a scope constraint.

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 has three parameters (one nested object) and no annotations or output schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain update semantics, allowed fields, status constraints, or return value. The sibling context suggests many related tools, but this description doesn't contextualize how it fits among them.

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 only 33% (only 'id' has a description, which is generic). The description itself does not mention purpose or custom_meta at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The agent is left with minimal semantic information about parameters.

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 ('access request'), and adds the scope constraint 'in-progress.' This distinguishes it from create/delete/finalize/revoke tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the more specialized set_access_request_custom_meta. Overall, the main purpose is evident.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_access_request_custom_meta or finalize_access_request. It implies usage for updating an in-progress request, but doesn't state exclusions or what happens if the request isn't in-progress. There is no explicit context for choosing this tool over others.

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