updateSpecProperties

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether it performs a partial update or replaces all properties. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict them but adds minimal additional insight.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what the response looks like or confirm success. It also omits any mention of permissions, conflict behavior, or that only specified fields are updated. This leaves the agent with incomplete information.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely restates that the tool updates properties like 'name'.

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 that the tool updates properties of an API specification, specifically the name. However, it implies there might be other properties ('such as its name') while the schema only includes 'name' as a mutable property beyond the identifier.

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 sibling update tools (e.g., updateMock, updateSpecFile, updateCollectionRequest). It does not mention prerequisites like the spec must exist or that only the name field is updated.

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