update_canned_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but only states 'Update' with no mention of side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. It effectively communicates the core operation without unnecessary detail, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a nested object parameter, yet the description provides no details about return values, required field structures, or behavioral consequences. It is too minimal to fully guide invocation in a complex environment.

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 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the two parameters. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the 'canned_response_fields' object is completely unspecified, leaving the agent without critical information about its shape or allowed values.

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 ('a canned response'), making it distinct from sibling tools like update_canned_response_folder. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create/view canned response, though the verb does that implicitly.

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 context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_canned_response or view_canned_response. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or conditions that would warrant an update.

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