openmausbot_update_bot

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write. The description adds only 'guarded', which suggests safety behavior but does not disclose what that means—whether changes are staged, reversible, or restricted. No permission requirements or side effects are mentioned, so the description contributes little beyond the 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 short sentence and is front-loaded, but it is more under-specified than elegantly concise. The vague term 'guarded' and the ambiguous 'Plan or apply' reduce the value of the brevity.

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?

This is a complex update tool with four parameters, a nested patch object, and two booleans that control behavior, yet the description leaves dry_run, allow_loosen, and the meaning of 'guarded' unexplained. An agent would need to infer critical behavior from defaults and parameter names alone.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the gap. 'Plan or apply' weakly maps to dry_run, but allow_loosen is left completely unexplained, and 'guarded' does not clarify the boolean semantics. The patch field list is already in the schema, so the description adds almost no parameter-level 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'update a bot', and hints at two modes, 'Plan or apply', which distinguishes it from a single-action tool. The word 'guarded' adds context but is undefined, so it does not fully clarify what makes this update different from a plain update or from sibling tools like set_bot_model.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openmausbot_plan or openmausbot_set_bot_model. It also does not explain when dry_run should be true versus false, or what role allow_loosen plays in choosing between planning and applying.

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