update_request_attribute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'WRITE' and API version, but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects on monitoring, or whether changes are reversible. The description is insufficient for a mutation 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 sentence containing all essential information: action, resource, identification method, WRITE operation, and API version. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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?

Despite the tool having nested parameters and complex options (e.g., dataSources with sub-properties), the description is extremely short. It does not explain what happens after update, how to verify success, or constraints (e.g., immutability of some fields). Given the complexity, the description is clearly incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds little extra meaning beyond 'by ID' and 'update existing'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing request attribute by ID', specifying the action (Update), resource (request attribute), and method (by ID). It also notes 'WRITE' operation and 'classic Config API v1', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_request_attribute, get_request_attribute, and delete_request_attribute.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for updating existing attributes but lacks context like when to prefer this over other update tools (e.g., update_settings_object) or which prerequisites are needed.

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