update-object

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints, such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior; it focuses on parameter applicability rather than runtime behavior.

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 compact at four sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence contributes necessary conditional logic, and it avoids filler while covering the polymorphic behavior completely.

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?

Given the polymorphic behavior of targetType, the description fully covers the conditional requirements for all three object types, says targetId is always required, and clarifies the thread rename case. With a complete input schema and an output schema present, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: it explains how targetType drives which fields are updated, that title is only valid for threads, and that content is conditionally required. This goes beyond the individual property descriptions in the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing Twist object.' It then enumerates the exact variants by targetType (thread, comment, message) and which fields each updates, distinguishing this tool from create/delete siblings in the same family.

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 gives clear conditional usage rules: when targetType is each value, which fields are required or optional, and that targetId must always be passed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like create-thread or delete-object, but the context makes the update-vs-create/delete distinction obvious from sibling names.

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