update_agent

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining exactly what merge-patch semantics mean, that omitted fields retain their current value, and that the slug is immutable so existing references (including monitors attached via agent_id) keep working. This meaningfully enriches the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations and sets accurate expectations.

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 well-structured sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds critical behavioral nuance about slug immutability. Every word contributes to correct invocation.

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 small 3-parameter update operation with no output schema, the description covers the important caveats: merge-patch semantics, the safe default for name-only renames, how to clear description, and why the slug remains stable. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, name, and description with helpful examples. The description reinforces the merge-patch behavior but does not add much new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('existing LastPing agent'), and the target fields ('name/description by UUID'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like register_agent, delete_agent, and get_agent.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: to modify an existing agent's name or description. It also gives practical usage guidance on merge-patch behavior (omit to keep, empty string to clear) and notes slug immutability. It does not explicitly name alternatives like register_agent for creation, but the context is clear enough.

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