update_business_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well. It reveals critical behavior: omitted optional fields reset to defaults, lead_form is preserved when omitted but can be unlinked with null, and the result is only a draft.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, important behavioral or usage detail.

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 complex 11-parameter mutation without annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage nuances well. Minor gaps remain around return values, permissions, and explicit relationship to publish_business_agent, but the description is sufficiently complete for a competent agent to call it 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 only 27%, so the description must compensate. It adds valuable global semantics for omitted optional fields and specifically explains lead_form behavior, but it does not document the other eight undocumented parameters beyond their property names.

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 ('Replace'), names the resource ('Business Agent'), and scopes the action to 'name and config'. The phrase 'save as draft' clearly differentiates this from publish_business_agent, and 'Replace' distinguishes it from create_business_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?

It provides clear usage context: the operation replaces an existing agent's configuration and saves as a draft, and 'Requires full desired state' warns that callers must supply the complete intended configuration. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough.

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