update_agent

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

The description only states 'Update', implying a mutation, but discloses no other behavioral traits. With no annotations, it fails to mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or whether the update is partial or full replacement.

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, making it concise. However, it is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness, as it omits critical details about parameters and behavior.

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?

The tool has two parameters, one being a complex object, and no output schema. The description provides only the bare action, lacking any context about return values, field examples, or edge cases, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. agent_fields is an opaque object with no keys or structure described, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden but fails to compensate.

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 uses a clear verb 'Update' with a specific resource 'agent', which distinctly identifies the operation. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_agent, view_agent, and search_agents by the action and target.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the agent must already exist, nor does it reference creating or viewing agents as related operations.

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