AgentBots: Update an agent bot

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required auth header, the HTTP method and path, the `extra_body` merge escape hatch, and the important note that Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and non-English text pass through unchanged. It does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared on a partial update.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then endpoint, auth, fields, and the encoding note in a compact block with no filler. The only mild redundancy is restating body fields already present in the schema, but it functions as a quick-scan summary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description need not describe return values. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition supplies auth, endpoint, writable fields, the extra_body mechanism, and an edge-case encoding rule — everything an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value: it enumerates the writable body fields (name, description, outgoing_url), explains that unlisted keys go through `extra_body`, and adds a value-format caveat about digit/language handling that the schema does not mention.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update an agent bot's attributes") and pins the exact operation with `[AgentBots] PATCH /platform/api/v1/agent_bots/{id}`. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling `gapify_update_agent_bot` (non-platform variant), leaving the agent to infer the surface distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of a required `id` and the PATCH endpoint make clear this is for modifying an existing bot. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of how it relates to the competing `gapify_update_agent_bot` sibling. The auth prerequisite (`api-access-token`) is stated, which is a small positive.

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