Update Tool

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide. It does not clarify whether the update is partial (merge) or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the minimal description fails to add meaningful context.

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, short sentence—concise but almost redundant with the tool name ('Update Tool'). It lacks informative content that would justify its existence, but it is not bloated or poorly structured.

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?

Given the large number of sibling tools and the free-form 'update' object (additionalProperties empty), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), what fields are valid, or how errors are handled. With no output schema, more detail is needed for reliable usage.

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 schema already describes both parameters perfectly: 'tool_id' as the identifier and 'update' as the fields to update, with 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantic detail, so it neither helps nor hurts—baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the function: 'Update fields on an existing tool by id.' It uses a specific verb ('Update'), identifies the resource ('tool'), and specifies the identifier ('by id'), effectively distinguishing it from other update tools for different entities like agents or workflows.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lyzr_update_agent, lyzr_update_workflow), nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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