yaaif_agent_spec_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the optimistic concurrency requirement ('using the version returned from its last read') and the replace_all restriction, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not say whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur beyond the update—gaps that matter for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then immediately gives the most critical constraint and routing hint. Every clause adds value.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the concurrency check and the replace_all rule. It leaves ambiguous whether updates are partial or full replacement, how segments/requirements/slots arrays interact with existing data, and what the response contains. An agent would likely need to ask follow-up questions before first safe use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains expected_version ('version returned from its last read') and replace_all ('replacement is only allowed with replace_all=true'), but it does not clarify the semantics of name, description, status, segments, slots, or requirements beyond their property names. With 9 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 begins with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Update Scenario identity or segments'. It distinguishes from the many sibling update tools by noting that requirement/slot replacement should be done with replace_all=true or via granular tools, so an agent can tell this apart from yaaif_agent_spec_update_segment or yaaif_agent_spec_upsert_slots. It does not enumerate all updatable fields (e.g., status, description), but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 states a key usage condition: 'Requirement and slot replacement is only allowed with replace_all=true; prefer granular tools.' This tells an agent when to use this tool versus the granular sibling toolsardt. It also implies when to use it: when updating the scenario's identity or segments and when doing wholesale replacement with replace_all=true.

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