systems_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'update'—it does not clarify whether this is a partial update, whether config is replaced entirely, or what side effects occur. No added value beyond the annotations.

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, direct, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancies. It is concise to a fault—it earns its place as a purpose statement but omits useful supporting detail that could have been added without bloating the description.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot tell whether omitted fields are preserved, what config should contain, whether applying the system is affected, or what the tool returns. The description alone is insufficient for correct invocation beyond guessing at the required system_id.

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 needed to explain what system_id, name, config, and description mean and how they behave. It mentions none of them. An agent gets no help understanding that config is an object, which fields are optional, or what the required system_id refers to beyond the generic tool 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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a saved scoring system'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like systems_create, systems_delete, systems_apply, and systems_show. Even without the title, the purpose is immediately understandable.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that systems_create is for new systems, systems_delete for removal, or systems_apply for scoring with a system. The word 'saved' only weakly implies an existing system, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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