update_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'update configuration' without specifying whether it's a merge or full replacement, whether permissions are required, or what the response looks like. The description adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The one-sentence description provides only the basic purpose and does not elaborate on behavior, update semantics, prerequisites, or return values. The schema covers parameters but the description leaves critical context for invocation largely implicit, making it insufficient for a tool of this 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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Updated name', 'ID of the agent to update'). The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'update' and identifies the resource as 'an existing AI agent's configuration', clearly distinguishing it from create/get/delete agent tools. The scope is explicit, matching the tool's name and intent.

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 phrase 'existing' implies this tool is for modifying already-created agents, not creating or retrieving them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_agent or get_agent, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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