openclaw_agents_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'permissive schema' and that the gateway 'accepts the same shape as agents.create,' but does not disclose security requirements, side effects, idempotency, or confirmation behavior 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 three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose statement, usage pattern, and schema behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return value information, error scenarios, permission requirements, and any behavioral caveats for a mutation operation. It falls short of completeness for safe agent usage.

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 both parameters described. The description adds value by clarifying that additional properties beyond the schema are allowed ('Schema is permissive') and that only changed fields need be passed, improving understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 tool action ('Update an existing agent's configuration'), names the wrapped API ('agents.update'), and emphasizes partial updates ('Pass `agentId` + only the fields you want to change'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `agents.create` by noting the permissive 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?

The description implies when to use (update existing agent) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings (e.g., openclaw_agents_create, openclaw_agents_delete). It lacks contextual guidance for conditional use.

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