Update A2A Agent

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, which covers basic behavioral traits. The description itself adds no additional context about partial vs. full updates, handling of unspecified fields, or external side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and concise, which is appropriate for an action-oriented tool even with many parameters.

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?

With 16 parameters, two required fields, and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields can be updated, whether the operation merges or replaces existing values, expected return values, or error conditions. The annotations cover safety but not functional semantics.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 16 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details (100% coverage). The baseline of 3 applies because the description offers no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as update merge behavior or relationships between props like credential_id and auth_type.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'existing A2A agent record,' which clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/get A2A tools. It is slightly generic with 'record,' but the A2A qualifier helps differentiate from the general lyzr_update_agent sibling.

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 word 'existing' and the required agent_id parameter imply the tool is for modifying an already-created A2A agent, which is a clear but unstated contrast to lyzr_create_a2a_agent. No explicit alternatives or preconditions are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implied.

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