update_destination

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the operation is in-place and partial, the kind is immutable, and changing an email address resets verification and triggers a new confirmation email. This adds meaningful side-effect context that the annotations alone do not 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?

Three concise sentences deliver the core action, the key limitation, and the most important side effect. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool with a nested config object and no output schema, the description plus the detailed schema provides all necessary information for an agent to call it correctly: what updates, what cannot change, how to handle config, and the email-specific consequence.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with high coverage, including detailed config shapes, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that only passed fields are changed and by highlighting the email verification reset, which affects the config parameter's semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Update a notification destination's name and/or config in place.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from create/delete operations by noting that the destination kind cannot be changed and must be deleted and recreated instead.

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 explicitly explains when this tool should not be used: changing the destination kind requires 'delete and recreate instead.' It also clarifies partial-update semantics with 'Only the fields you pass are changed,' which guides an agent on how to construct a correct call.

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