Update a spec's properties

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey. Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent, but the description does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens to unspecified properties. There is no contradiction with annotations, but there is also no added transparency.

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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter update operation with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the update's scope (e.g., whether only metadata like name is affected, versus file contents or definition), nor does it mention return or failure behavior.

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 both parameters clearly documented. The description's mention of 'such as its name' only repeats the schema's existing parameter description and adds no meaningful semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Updates an API specification's properties') and gives a concrete example ('such as its name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like updateSpecFile or updateWorkspace by focusing on spec property metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like updateSpecFile, createSpec, or putSpec. The description only restates the basic action without any context, exclusions, or relationships to other tools.

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