Update Intent

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and open-world behavior. The description adds that only provided fields are updated and that status is not changed, which are useful behavioral traits beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose error handling or side effects, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly states purpose, second provides usage guidance and points to sibling. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 description is minimal given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema). It highlights the key distinction from a sibling but omits expected response, error handling, or behavior on missing intentId. While annotations and schema cover much, the description could be more complete for an agent to use it reliably.

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 high (89%) with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it only reinforces the partial update concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already 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 'Update an existing intent's content' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from sibling tool 'update_intent_status' by explicitly stating it does not change status, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Provide only the fields you want to change.' It also clearly states when not to use (for status changes) and directs to the alternative tool 'update_intent_status', fulfilling the criteria for explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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