Update an agent

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond them: null clears fields, partial updates leave other fields intact, a masked secret keeps the stored value rather than overwriting it, and Orchestra-managed agents accept only gitEnabled/secrets/llmKeyType and reject other fields with a 403. That is exactly the failure-mode context an agent needs 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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place. The core patch/null rule is front-loaded, the secret-masking rule follows, and the special-case 403 restriction is last where it belongs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the non-obvious behaviors of a 13-parameter mutation tool. The residual gap is that most individual fields are undocumented in both the description and schema, which would matter for an agent composing a non-trivial update.

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 15% across 13 parameters, so the schema does little work and the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for `secrets` (masked value semantics), `gitEnabled` and `llmKeyType` (Orchestra-managed restrictions) and a universal null-to-clear rule, but eight parameters (name, avatarPath, description, systemPrompt, defaultEffort, samplePrompts, defaultModelId, responsePrompt) get no semantic guidance in either place.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Update the fields given') and immediately defines the update semantics ('leave the rest unchanged'), which is PATCH behavior rather than replacement. Combined with the name and the sibling set (create_agent, get_agent, delete_agent), an agent can distinguish this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operative conditions: use it to change a subset of fields, send null to clear an optional field, and masked secrets are preserved. It also scopes behavior for Orchestra-managed agents. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating prerequisites (permissions needed to call it), so it falls short of a 5.

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