patch_pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Update a pool' suggests a mutation operation but doesn't disclose whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing pool settings not mentioned, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, there's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is insufficient.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'pool' is in this system, what aspects can be updated, what the typical response contains, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed to use this tool effectively.

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 description provides zero information about parameters, while the schema has 0% description coverage. With 4 parameters (pool_name, slots, description, include_deferred) completely undocumented in both schema and description, users have no guidance on what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the update operation. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Update a pool' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'patch_pool' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a pool are updated or what 'pool' refers to in this context. While it includes a verb ('Update') and resource ('pool'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'post_pool' or 'delete_pool'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple pool-related tools in the sibling list (post_pool, delete_pool, get_pool, get_pools), but the description offers no differentiation. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this tool should be preferred over other pool operations.

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