openmausbot_upsert_routine

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'name-idempotent' specificity (idempotency keyed on the routine name) and the 'Plan or apply' distinction, which hints at the dry-run mode not present in annotations. No contradiction, but it does not disclose what 'apply' overwrites or how conflicts are resolved.

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 terse sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, the compact phrasing ('Plan or apply a name-idempotent routine upsert') is jargon-heavy and sacrifices clarity for brevity, so it reads as under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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 mutating upsert with an open-ended nested spec object and a dry-run mode, one cryptic line is inadequate. The output schema covers return values, but an agent cannot confidently construct a valid spec or understand the plan-vs-apply distinction. Substantial behavioral and structural detail is missing.

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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning. The spec parameter is an open-ended object (additionalProperties: true) with the thin schema hint 'Routine spec using bot name or id', yet the description never explains what keys spec should contain. 'name-idempotent' implies a name field must exist, but this is never made explicit. The dry_run parameter is left entirely to its name and default.

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 specific operation (upsert) on a specific resource (routine) and adds the meaningful qualifier 'name-idempotent' (re-running with the same name updates rather than duplicates). The title annotation 'Create or update an OpenMausBot routine' reinforces this. However, 'Plan or apply' is ambiguous without being tied to the dry_run parameter, and the phrasing is jargon-dense.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description never states when to use this tool versus the many routine-related siblings (set_routine_enabled, run_routine_now, delete_routine, list_routines), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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