update_evaluator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing evaluator's configuration' without explaining side effects, permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, or how this interacts with other tools like commit_evaluator. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy, achieving maximum conciseness while remaining informative.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and absence of annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after the update (e.g., success response, whether a commit is required), nor does it provide guidance on preconditions. The schema helps, but the description fails to complete the contextual picture for an agent.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all seven parameters, so the schema itself provides detailed semantic meaning for each field. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, but the description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('Update') and the specific resource ('existing evaluator's configuration'). This distinguishes it from related tools like create_evaluator (new evaluator) and delete_evaluator (removal), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage on existing evaluators but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_evaluator or commit_evaluator. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, providing only minimal contextual guidance.

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