Update Assistant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: a fetch-merge-write cycle that preserves unspecified fields. It doesn't cover auth/permissions or resolve whether passing null clears a field versus omits it, but the core mutation semantics are stated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it does, how it works, and when to prefer it. No filler or repetition.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose and merge semantics adequately. It leaves gaps on authorization requirements and the null/clear semantics, which keeps it from fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with per-field descriptions ('Replace the run configuration', etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the omitted-fields-are-preserved rule, but does not resolve the null-versus-omit ambiguity for the 11 optional nullable fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (AI assistant/persona), and immediately clarifies the partial-update nature. It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_assistant, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use this instead of create_assistant when you only want to change a few settings without resetting the rest.' It names the alternative and the exact condition that selects this tool over it.

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