update_agent

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by explaining merge-patch semantics, the auth requirement (write scope), and the side effect that slug is immutable—clarifying that existing references by slug remain valid. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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 moderately long but each sentence contributes: auth requirement, core operation, merge-patch semantics, and slug immutability. It is front-loaded with the auth requirement and clearly structured, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing key points.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: auth, behavior, parameter nuances, and side effects. It does not describe the return value, but that is not critical for calling the tool correctly. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it safely.

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 the baseline is 3. The description enriches the parameters by explaining that description can be omitted (safe default) or passed as an empty string to clear, and that name changes do not affect the slug. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 an existing LastPing agent's name/description'), the resource (agent), and the identifier (UUID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_agent and get_agent by focusing on the update operation and the specific fields that can be changed.

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 implies when to use it (to modify name/description) and provides important constraints like slug immutability and merge-patch behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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