updateSpecProperties

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe for retries), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds minimal context by specifying 'properties, such as its name,' hinting at partial updates. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. With annotations covering core safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Updates an API specification's properties') and includes a clarifying example ('such as its name'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations covering mutation and idempotency, but no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain return values or error conditions, and usage guidelines are missing. For a mutation tool, more context on outcomes would be helpful, though annotations provide some safety context.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (specId and name). The description adds marginal meaning by implying that 'name' is an example property, but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or other updatable properties beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema 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 the verb ('Updates') and resource ('an API specification's properties'), and specifies an example property ('such as its name'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateSpecFile' or 'updateWorkspace', which also update related resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 a specId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'updateSpecFile' (which might update file content) or 'createSpec' (for initial creation). Usage is implied from the action but not explicitly defined.

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