Update Lyzr Agent

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

Annotations already provide key safety traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (repeated updates safe), destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds little beyond 'update' and 'existing', such as whether it is a partial update (only provided fields) or what happens if the agent does not exist. It does not contradict annotations, and the annotations carry most of the burden.

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, efficient sentence that lists the updatable fields without any wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

This is a simple update tool with no output schema, but the description does not state the return value (e.g., updated agent object) or explicitly note that only provided fields are updated. It also does not mention any prerequisites beyond 'existing' agent. Given the low complexity and good schema/annotations, some gaps remain but are not severe.

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 clear meaning ('New goal', 'New agent name', etc.). The description lists the field names but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('existing Lyzr agent') and enumerates the exact fields that can be modified (name/role/goal/instructions/temperature/description). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_create_agent, lyzr_delete_agent, and lyzr_get_agent.

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 the use case: modify fields on an agent that already exists, which is distinct from creating, deleting, or fetching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'for creating a new agent, use lyzr_create_agent'). No explicit exclusions, but context is clear.

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