goclaw_agent_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified settings. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'settings' encompass, how partial updates work, what the response contains, or error handling. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema without broader context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format constraints, dependencies between parameters), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing agent's settings'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from creation and deletion tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other agent-related tools like 'goclaw_agent_share' or 'goclaw_agent_get'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goclaw_agent_create' or 'goclaw_agent_get'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing agent ID) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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