Canned Responses: Update Canned Response in Account

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement (api-access-token header), the PATCH/partial-update nature, and the extra_body escape hatch for unlisted fields. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens to values not passed.

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 purpose, then endpoint, auth, and body fields in a tight block. The Persian-digits sentence is unusual but plausibly useful for this API; overall efficient, with only minor redundancy in repeating the resource tag.

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 and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description's burden is the call mechanics. It covers endpoint, auth, updatable fields, and the extra_body mechanism, leaving only return behavior and partial-update edge cases unstated.

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 schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description mildly enriches this by noting which fields are body fields (content, short_code) and that extra_body merges additional keys, plus a note on Persian/Arabic-Indic digits, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a canned response in the account') and tags the resource family '[Canned Responses]'. It is easily distinguishable from add/list/remove canned response siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 verb 'update' and the PATCH endpoint imply this is for modifying an existing canned response, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no direction to gapify_add_canned_response for creation vs this for modification.

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