Update agent instructions bundle

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which is helpful for understanding access requirements. However, it does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether this replaces the bundle or merges), potential side effects, or error conditions. With annotations covering some aspects, the description adds moderate value.

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise, but it omits critical information. It front-loads the purpose but fails to provide necessary details. Structure is straightforward but sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool modifies a complex resource with a nested schema and an output schema exists, the description should provide context on return values, prerequisites, and relationship to other tools. It does none of these. The 0% parameter coverage further exacerbates the lack of completeness.

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%, placing full burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions no parameters, leaving the agent to interpret 'body' properties (mode, rootPath, entryFile, clearLegacyPromptTemplate) and 'path.id' solely from their names. This is insufficient for correct parameter selection and invocation.

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 title and description clearly state 'Update agent instructions bundle', indicating the primary action. However, the description does not differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like pc_patch_agents_by_id_instructions_path, which also modifies instructions. The purpose is clear but lacks distinguishing context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to use this over other agent update tools, or any specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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