goclaw_custom_tool_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. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), or if there are side effects like validation or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, low schema coverage (20%), and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the update entails, how parameters interact, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 low at 20%, with only the 'id' parameter documented. The description adds no information about the other four parameters (name, description, command, timeout_seconds), such as their purposes, formats, or constraints. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 the resource ('a custom tool's definition'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'goclaw_custom_tool_create' or 'goclaw_custom_tool_get', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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_custom_tool_create' or 'goclaw_custom_tool_get'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing custom tool ID) or context for updates, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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