update_assistant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does meaningful work: empty strings leave text fields unchanged, and capabilities/permissions/metadata are explicitly lossy replacements of current values. It omits auth/permission requirements, error behavior on an invalid assistant_id, and reversibility, which keeps it from a 5.

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 critical no-op/sentinel rules are front-loaded before the Args block, and the per-parameter lines are terse given the 0% schema coverage. Minor redundancy: the header says both temperature and max_tokens accept "0 or -1" to clear, while the per-field lines assign -1 to temperature and 0 to max_tokens, which reads as inconsistent.

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?

An output schema exists, so "Returns: JSON result" is acceptable, and the parameter coverage is thorough. The remaining gap is contextual routing: the overlap with enable_assistant/disable_assistant is left unaddressed.

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 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does — every parameter is named with its meaning, plus the non-obvious semantics (empty string = no change; -1 clears temperature, 0 clears max_tokens). This goes well beyond what the bare schema conveys.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ("Modify an existing assistant"), which cleanly separates it from create_assistant, delete_assistant, and get_assistant. It stops short of explicitly routing against the enable_assistant/disable_assistant siblings that overlap with its own `enabled` field.

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?

It gives a real usage rule — "Provide only the fields to change" — which is genuinely actionable. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over enable_assistant/disable_assistant (which toggle the same state exposed via `enabled`), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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