update_capability

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no additional behavioral context. There is no disclosure of required permissions, overwriting behavior, validation, or side effects. For a mutation tool with sparse annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear labels. No wasted text, though it could be more terse in parameter descriptions.

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?

With 10 parameters (only 1 required) and an output schema existing, the description covers the main fields but lacks return value details and behavioral context (e.g., partial vs full update). The tool is moderately complex, and the description provides a functional foundation but not full completeness.

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 lists each parameter with a brief phrase (e.g., 'New capability name'), adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. For config fields it clarifies 'JSON string of additional configuration,' which is helpful. However, no examples, constraints, or formats are provided.

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 opens with 'Update an existing capability pack,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It implies a mutation, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_capability and from create_capability. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., update_agent), but the context is clear enough.

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 (e.g., create_capability for new packs, or delete_capability for removal). It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' criteria, simply stating the action without context.

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