petstore-api.updatePet

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false align with 'update.' However, it adds no additional context beyond what the annotations already declare, such as what an update entails, potential side effects, or error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is met but not exceeded.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks critical context for distinguishing from similar siblings. The existence of 'updatePetWithForm' in the sibling list makes the description incomplete without mentioning when to use this endpoint versus the form-based variant. The output schema provides return-type clarity, so that is not a concern.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, so there are no parameter details to describe. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information, as there are none to document.

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 'Update an existing pet.' clearly specifies the verb and resource: it updates a pet, and 'existing' indicates modification of a current resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'petstore-api.updatePetWithForm', which likely performs a similar update via form data. The name and description are nearly identical in scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'petstore-api.updatePetWithForm' or the swagger-petstore variants. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned. Given multiple siblings with overlapping functionality, some explicit usage guidance is necessary.

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