Update Credential

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: 'All fields optional' implies partial update semantics (omitted fields remain unchanged), but it does not describe what happens to unspecified fields, any validation side effects, or return behavior. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a key usage note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details. This is an example of appropriate 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 tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, with nested objects, but the schema provides thorough descriptions for all parameters. The description, while minimal, conveys the core operation and partial-update flexibility. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or provide deeper context about how extra_fields interact with the request, but the overall picture is adequate for a simple credential update tool.

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 each parameter already has a description (e.g., credential_id, name, scope, metadata, credentials, extra_fields). The description's 'All fields optional' is redundant with the schema's required list (only credential_id). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 'Update an existing credential' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (credential), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, list, get, and delete. The additional note 'All fields optional' adds important scope semantics. This is a specific, actionable purpose statement.

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 implies usage: it targets existing credentials and allows partial updates via 'All fields optional'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of lyzr_credential_create or lyzr_credential_delete, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context where update is appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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