yaaif_agent_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: the operation is a PUT, agent_type is immutable, and skill_ids replaces existing mappings. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, response behavior, or whether omitted fields are preserved or reset.

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 sentences contain no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical caveats (PUT semantics, immutable agent_type, skill_ids replacement behavior) are packed efficiently into the second sentence. The description earns its brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool needs more context to be safely invokable. The description does not cover return values, partial-update semantics, the need for agent_id, or relationship to create/get operations. It is a useful snippet but not a complete guide for an agent.

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, but it only explains skill_ids and mentions agent_type, which is not even present in the schema. The other params (name, enabled, agent_id, description, goal_prompt) receive no semantic explanation beyond their names. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 states a specific action ('Update an existing agent') with an explicit HTTP method (PUT), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from yaaif_agent_create, and the resource focus on agents separates it from agent_spec_update and other update tools.

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 this is for updating already-created agents rather than creating new ones, but it never names alternatives like yaaif_agent_create or states explicit conditions for when to use this tool versus them. The guidance about omitting agent_type is useful, but the when-to-use guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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