Agents: Update Agent in Account

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the required auth header, the PATCH/partial-update nature, the extra_body merge escape hatch, and the i18n/digit normalization behavior. It stops short of saying what happens to omitted fields or how failures surface.

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 verb+resource, then endpoint, auth, and body fields in a compact line-per-concern layout. No filler sentences; the locale note is terse and immediately actionable.

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?

For a PATCH mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth, mutable fields, and the extra_body bypass. It omits partial-update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved) and error behavior, which would round it out.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented; the description's enumeration of 'role, availability, auto_offline' largely restates that. The one genuine addition is that text values may be sent in Persian/other languages unchanged and IDs/numbers may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits, which affects how values should be supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an agent in the account') and anchors it with 'PATCH /api/v1/accounts/{account_id}/agents/{id}', making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent sibling 'gapify_update_agent_bot', so the agent must rely on the 'agent' vs 'agent_bot' wording to disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for editing agent configuration. The description supplies mechanics (endpoint, auth, body fields) but leaves the selection decision entirely to the reader.

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