Update a registration token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Modify' without disclosing whether it is a partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, authentication requirements, or how 'validity' changes. The behavior is underspecified 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. It lacks key information about parameter interactions, partial update behavior, prerequisites, and edge cases, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'usage limit' and 'expiry time' which map to usesAllowed and expiryTime, but 'validity' is ambiguous and pending/completed are unexplained. Only a few of the 5 parameters are semantically clarified.

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 ('Modify') and the resource ('an existing registration token'), and it lists the specific attributes to be modified ('usage limit, expiry time, or validity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/list.

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 this tool is for modifying existing tokens ('existing registration token'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, though the context is reasonably clear.

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