reflex_update_definition

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

The description adds 'long-running' beyond the annotations, which is useful behavioral context. But it doesn't disclose whether the update replaces the entire definition, merges with existing parts, returns a job ID, or requires polling. For a mutating operation with readOnlyHint=false, more behavioral detail would help.

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 that names the action, notes the important long-running trait, and summarizes the two accepted input modes. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 long-running definition-update operation with no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it doesn't explain whether existing definition parts are preserved, what the operation returns, how completion is observed, or any prerequisites. This is too terse for safe invocation of a complex mutation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the two mutually relevant input modes: 'definition parts inline' (parts) or 'a directory path' (partsDirectoryPath), which helps the agent choose the right parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Reflex (Activator) item's definition' and marks it as 'long-running.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from simple reflex_update and reflex_get_definition, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 intended use is implied: update a Reflex definition when an agent needs to modify definition parts. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over reflex_update or how it relates to reflex_get_definition, and it offers no when-not-to-use conditions.

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