Update API Request

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the update is partial (omitted fields keep values), confined to local metadata, subject to environment policies, and that the return is a redacted summary. These details are not present in annotations and help set expectations around side effects and limitations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and immediately follow with key behavioral notes. Every sentence delivers new information without fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 is moderately complex (14 params) and lacks schema-level descriptions, so the description carries a heavy burden. It provides some completeness through partial-update semantics and return format, but misses field-level clarifications and any mention of error conditions or required authentication. Given the output schema exists, it partially compensates, but the description still leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings, but it only offers the generic behavior that omitted fields retain prior values. It does not describe what each of the 14 parameters (url, auth, body, method, etc.) represents or how they interplay. This is inadequate for an agent to correctly use the tool, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 action ('Updates a saved API request record') and names the resource type (API request) via the command bus. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_request and delete_request by using 'update' and referencing existing records. The mention of partial updates via omitted fields further clarifies its purpose.

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 context for when to use the tool by noting it updates saved requests and explicitly states environment constraints ('dev/test allow it, prod blocks or requires future explicit policy'). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like create_request or delete_request, nor does it state when to avoid using it, such as for new records.

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