update_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, rate limits, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update a component'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential operation.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual needs: what can be updated, how updates behave, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'component_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'component' object parameter at all—what properties it accepts, their semantics, or validation rules. This leaves half the parameters inadequately explained.

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 'Update a component by ID' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('component'), but it's vague about what aspects of a component can be updated. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_component' and 'delete_component' by specifying update rather than create/delete, but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_story' or 'update_asset' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing component ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update operations on other resources. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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