Update a sequence

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the blast radius ('delivery, audience membership, published data or irreversible state') and the hard requirement for confirm=true. This helps the agent understand the consequences beyond the safety flags, though it stops short of describing reversibility details or failure modes.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the impact plus the confirm requirement following. No filler and every clause carries 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 15-parameter, destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, impact scope and the confirm gate, and annotations plus the richly documented schema fill in the rest. It is largely complete, though it does not mention the payload vs. body-flags mutual exclusivity or note that the call is non-idempotent.

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%, so all 15 parameters are already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description adds only the confirm=true requirement, which is already present in the schema's confirm parameter description, so there is little net semantic gain.

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?

'Update a sequence' states a specific verb and resource, immediately distinguishing it from siblings like get_sequence, create_sequence, delete_sequence and list_sequences. It does not however explicitly name an alternative or clarify scope of what 'update' covers beyond the impact note.

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 supplies a precondition ('Requires confirm=true.') that frames how to invoke it, and the impact list signals caution. But it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no statement of who should call it, leaving usage largely implied.

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