reflex_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a mutating but non-destructive operation, and the description's 'Update' wording is consistent with that. The description adds only field-scoping context and does not disclose further behavioral traits such as whether omitted fields are preserved (partial update), validation rules, or error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the verb first, the resource second, and the updatable fields last. The parenthetical '(Activator)' earns its place by mapping the product term 'Reflex' to its synonym, and no word is wasted.

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 low-complexity metadata update with annotations and full schema coverage, the basic calling contract is visible. The main gaps are the absence of partial-update semantics (whether providing only displayName leaves description unchanged) and the lack of routing to reflex_update_definition when a definition change is intended — both minor but relevant given the large sibling set.

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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter already documented ('New description', 'New display name', 'The reflex/activator ID', 'The workspace ID'). The tool description merely paraphrases the displayName and description parameters and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('a Reflex (Activator) item'), and a precise field scope ('name or description'). This closed field set implicitly separates the tool from reflex_create, reflex_delete, and reflex_update_definition, but those siblings are never named, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 field scope implies the use case — modifying the displayName or description of an existing Reflex — but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Given the sibling set contains both reflex_update and reflex_update_definition, the ambiguity over which updater to select for a given intent is real and unaddressed.

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