update_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Update' implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on syncs), error handling, or response format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' list. It's efficient with minimal fluff, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining JSON format notes).

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 mutation nature, 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it covers parameters well but lacks behavioral and usage details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but gaps in guidelines and transparency remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, including examples (e.g., JSON format for 'configuration'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on constraints or interactions between parameters.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing data model in Polytomic'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_connection' or 'update_sync', which would require a more specific scope or context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing model ID), compare it to 'create_model' or other update tools, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.

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