modify_agent

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Modify Agent Configuration'), so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates this is a mutation operation ('Update'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The description adds some context about tool handling but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by three concise usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context without redundancy. The structure flows logically from what the tool does to how to use it properly.

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 this is a mutation tool with minimal annotations but an output schema exists, the description provides good context about the operation and usage alternatives. However, it could benefit from mentioning that this is a partial update (implied by 'fields to update') and clarifying authentication or permission requirements. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (agent_id and update_data with its nested properties). The description mentions 'provided data' but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Update an existing agent by ID') and resource ('agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_agent (creation) or delete_agent (deletion). It precisely identifies the operation as modifying an existing entity rather than creating a new one.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it directs users to get_agent_summary for current config, list_llm_models/list_embedding_models for model options, and specifically states to use attach_tool for tools instead of this tool. This clearly defines the scope and exclusions.

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