passgage_update_branche

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 clearly indicates a mutation ('Update') but gives no details about whether the update is partial or full, any authentication requirements, side effects, or what the return value will be.

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 front-loaded with the action, but it is so sparse that it fails to provide useful context beyond the tool name. It is not unnecessarily verbose, but it also does not earn high marks because it omits substantive details.

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?

For an update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an open 'data' object, the description is incomplete. It does not mention required permissions, validation behavior, partial update semantics, or how the response should be interpreted, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters: 'id' as the UUID and 'data' as the update data. However, the description adds no extra meaning, and the 'data' object is open-ended with additionalProperties true, leaving the actual updateable fields unspecified. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 states the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing branche'), making the tool's purpose clear at a basic level. However, it does not specify what fields or aspects of a branche can be updated, and it is not sharply differentiated from the many sibling update tools beyond the resource name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_branche or delete_branche. The phrase 'existing branche' implies the target must already exist, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion information.

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