update_custom_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The fetch-and-echo instruction signals whole-object replacement semantics, which is the key behavioral trait, but it does not disclose what happens to omitted fields, error behavior for a nonexistent id, or return-value details.

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 short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the single most critical usage constraint. Every word earns its place and the critical guidance is front-loaded.

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 description directly addresses the tool's main hazard — an unconstrained nested object with no schema-enforced structure — by mandating the fetch-and-echo workflow. It is sufficient for a simple two-parameter update, though a note on failure scenarios (e.g., invalid id) would round it out.

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 both parameters are already documented inline. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by instructing the agent to populate the unconstrained custom_format object (additionalProperties: {}) with the exact object retrieved from get_custom_format — precisely the procedural detail that prevents a malformed partial update.

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 clear verb+resource pair ('Update a custom format') and adds the fetch-echo workflow that defines the update method. It is unambiguous against siblings like create_custom_format, delete_custom_format, or get_custom_format, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

'Fetch it first and send the whole object back' gives an explicit, actionable procedure: retrieve the format via get_custom_format, modify it, then resubmit the complete object. This implies PUT-style replacement semantics and warns against partial payloads, but it does not name alternatives or state when create_custom_format should be used instead.

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