update_did

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool updates configuration, implying a mutation, but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, which existing fields are overwritten, whether there are side effects, or if any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool with 10 parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. The parenthetical list of fields is helpful without unnecessary verbosity, though the trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to complete the picture. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether the update is atomic), nor does it warn about potential invalid value combinations. An agent would need to consult additional documentation or make assumptions.

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 all parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description mentions 'description, primary/backup route and destination' which maps to several parameters, but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Update' and the resource 'DID configuration', and lists specific fields (description, primary/backup route and destination). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like get_did, delete_did, and purchase_did, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with those alternatives.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not state prerequisites, such as the DID needing to exist, nor does it mention when to use get_did or delete_did instead. An agent is left to infer from the schema.

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