update-agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it well: it discloses the mutation type (PUT), the partial-update behavior ('Only the provided fields are sent'), and the numeric-id-vs-UUID trap that commonly causes failed updates. It omits permission requirements, whether omitted fields are preserved vs cleared for nested objects like enabled_tools/default_models, and what a successful update returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the implementation detail and the critical id-format caveat. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly: the endpoint, the id type, and the sparse-update contract. The remaining gap is that, absent an output schema, nothing is said about what the response contains or how to confirm the update took effect.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description's numeric-id note largely duplicates the agent_id field description. The one genuine addition is the partial-update guarantee that unlisted fields are not sent, which clarifies optionality semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an AI agent') and names the underlying endpoint and SDK method, so the agent knows exactly which operation is performed. It is clearly distinguishable from list-agents/get-agent/create-agent/delete-agent by name and by the PUT semantics described.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must already have the numeric id, and the description points to get-agent as the source of that id, which is a useful routing hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of create-agent as the alternative for new agents, and no statement about prerequisites such as ownership or permissions.

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