Update a clause

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior, and it does add important context: Pro keeps a version of the previous text while the free tier overwrites without history. This is a meaningful behavioral caveat beyond the schema. It does not cover return values or permission requirements, but the key side-effect is stated.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words: the first states the operation and its targets, the second adds the critical versioning caveat. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description includes the core purpose and a notable behavioral distinction, but it leaves gaps around the full set of mutable fields and the actual meaning of 'text' versus 'body'. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent may not know what response to expect or how to set fields like language or title. This is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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 only 13% (only 'id' is described), so the description must compensate. It lists several updatable fields but uses 'text' where the schema property is 'body' and omits 'title' and 'language', leaving the parameter mapping ambiguous and incomplete. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a full update request.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('clause'), and it names several mutable fields, which clearly conveys the update intent and distinguishes it from sibling tools like clause_add or clause_delete. However, it omits 'title' and 'language' from the field list, so its differentiation is slightly incomplete.

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 wording implies updating an existing clause rather than creating or deleting one, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool or avoid alternatives. With many sibling tools in the same domain, an agent has to infer the usage context from the action verb and field list.

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