update_sift

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Update' implying mutation, but omits details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or reversibility.

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?

Short and direct, but the 'Args:' section is unformatted. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but lacks front-loading of critical info like usage context.

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?

Adequately explains function and parameters for a simple update tool with no output schema. However, lacks behavioral transparency and error conditions, which are important for 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%, so description carries burden. It adds 'leave empty to keep current' for name and instructions, which is helpful beyond the schema defaults, but otherwise mirrors 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 verb 'update' and the resource 'sift', and lists the updatable fields (name, instructions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_sift' and 'delete_sift'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recreating the sift. The description only mentions parameter usage ('leave empty to keep current') but lacks context on prerequisites or conflicts.

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