passgage_update_approval_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' with no mention of whether the update is a partial patch or full replacement, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It is essentially a tautology of the tool name and provides no additional structure or useful detail. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

The tool has a nested data object, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description offers no information about update semantics, allowed fields in the data object, or return values. Given the complexity and absence of structured context, this description is completely inadequate for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, as both parameters (id and data) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing approval_flow'), which distinguishes it from create/delete/get variants. It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it lacks additional scoping details like which fields can be updated.

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, such as when a partial update is appropriate or if specific authorization is required. The description merely states what it does, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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