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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true (writes are destructive), idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that only specified fields are changed, which is useful context about partial updates. However, it doesn't disclose what 'destructive' means here – e.g., whether it overwrites existing values, what happens to unmentioned fields, or any auth requirements. With annotations covering safety profile, the added value is moderate.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundancy. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding.

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 a mutation with a nested 'fields' object and destructive annotation, but no output schema. The description is very brief and doesn't cover error cases, return values, or side effects (e.g., whether it triggers automations). It's adequate but lacks details for safe invocation.

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 schema already documents all three parameters fully, including examples for 'fields'. The description reiterates that only specified fields are updated, which is already in the schema's description for 'fields'. No new parameter semantics are added beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('specific cells in a record'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like ap_insert_records or ap_manage_fields beyond being an update operation; 'cells' is slightly informal for a record-based system.

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 usage (updating existing records, partial changes) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternative tools. It also doesn't warn against using it for creating records versus updating them.

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