tentra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation operation (implied by 'update'), it preserves existing data unless explicitly replaced, and it requires an existing ID. However, it doesn't mention permissions, error handling, or response format.

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?

Four tightly focused sentences with zero waste. The first states purpose, second provides usage context, third gives critical exclusion rule, and fourth explains preservation behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex mutation tool with 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks details about the update operation's effects, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful update. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 only 20%, but the description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions preserving existing services/connections unless explicitly replaced, which hints at the 'services' and 'connections' parameters' behavior, but doesn't explain the complex nested structures or other parameters like 'name' and 'description'.

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 specific action ('update'), target resource ('existing architecture artifact'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_architecture' by emphasizing modification of existing artifacts rather than creation of new ones.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user wants to modify, evolve, or improve an architecture that already exists') and when not to use ('NEVER create a new one if you have an existing ID in context — always update instead'), providing clear alternatives to sibling tools like 'create_architecture'.

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