update_coaching_style

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation semantics, so the bar is lower; the description usefully adds the required auth scope. What it omits is critical: whether omitted optional fields are left unchanged or cleared, and what a successful response looks like — a real ambiguity for a 7-param update.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope gate — no filler. It is tight but arguably too sparse given the parameter surface it leaves unexplained.

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 a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition should say how fields combine and what changes persist. Instead the agent is left to guess at patch-vs-replace semantics and field meanings.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing: `id` (the only required param), `objectionStyle`, `toneDescriptor`, `closingPhilosophy` and `personalityPrompt` are never explained. The agent must infer all field semantics from bare property names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Update a custom coaching style"), which clearly separates it from create_coaching_style and list_coaching_styles in the sibling set. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 `coaching:write` scope requirement is a concrete prerequisite that tells the agent when this tool is callable. However, there is no guidance on when to update versus create a style, or what happens if the id doesn't exist — usage is only implied.

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