update_a_saved_response

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

The description adds 'idempotent' which aligns with the idempotentHint annotation. It also includes a visual indicator ('WRITE · updates data'). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide, such as authorization requirements or side effects.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences and a metadata line. It is front-loaded with the action type, HTTP method, and resource path. Every piece of text adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (update an existing record, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and idempotency. It could mention the return value or error scenarios, but for a straightforward update, it is largely complete.

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 documents both parameters (id and body with nested fields). The description does not add any further meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a saved response' and 'Modifies an existing record in place.' It identifies the verb (update) and resource (saved response). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools, though the resource type is specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_a_saved_response or other update tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use.

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