update_va_topic

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only 'Update' and **[Write]**, which are consistent but do not enrich behavioral understanding (e.g., partial updates, error handling). No contradiction with annotations.

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 plus a tag, containing no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it quick to parse. Every element earns its place.

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 the tool has two parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It misses context like idempotent behavior (from annotations could be mentioned), that only specified fields are updated, or typical return values. The schema partially compensates, but the description could be more thorough.

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 sys_id described as 'Topic sys_id' and fields as 'Fields to update (name, description, active, etc.)'. The description does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 'Update a Virtual Agent topic properties' clearly states the verb (Update) and resource (Virtual Agent topic). The **[Write]** tag reinforces the action. Given sibling tools like create_va_topic and get_va_topic, the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_va_topic for new topics, get_va_topic for reading). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The **[Write]** hint only implies modification, not strategic use.

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