aap_update_credential

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) that is not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the HTTP method (PATCH) and states the return format (JSON with updated credential id and name), providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose details about partial update behavior, idempotency, or side effects.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with the main action stated first. It avoids unnecessary details but remains readable.

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 mutation tool with a nested input object and multiple fields, the description is sparse. It does not explain the meaning of 'inputs', whether fields are optional or required, or any operational constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves key usage details undefined.

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?

The description only labels the param as 'Fields to update' without mentioning the actual fields (credential_id, name, inputs, description) or their semantics. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter explanations, leaving the agent to rely solely on 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 tool updates an existing AAP credential via PATCH, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as create_credential, delete_credential, and get_credential. The mention of 'existing' clarifies the target object.

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 usage for modifying an existing credential, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_credential or delete_credential. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the usage context is only implied.

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