swagger-petstore---openapi-3.0.updatePet

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention whether a full replacement is required, how missing pets are handled, or any side effects beyond the generic 'update'.

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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful context, though this does not affect conciseness.

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 empty input schema is suspicious—an update operation typically requires a request body, which is not exposed in the schema. The description does not explain what an 'existing pet' entails, how to provide the pet data, or how this differs from updatePetWithForm. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of operational guidance.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description is not required to add parameter information when no parameters exist.

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 specific verb ('update') and resource ('existing pet'), clearly indicating modification rather than creation or deletion. It distinguishes from addPet and deletePet, but not from the sibling updatePetWithForm, which also updates a pet.

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 like updatePetWithForm or addPet. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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