Update an existing Compoid record. Can update metadata only or replace both file and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| work_id | Yes | ||
| creators | No | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| references | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| file_upload | No | ||
| resource_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool can update metadata only or replace both file and metadata, hinting at the destructive nature of providing file_upload. With no annotations, it covers some behavioral traits but leaves out permissions, return values, and how unspecified metadata fields are handled, creating ambiguity.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and is a mutation tool, the description is too sparse. It leaves open questions about partial updates, response structure, and file upload specifics. Although an output schema exists, it is not referenced in the description, leaving the behavioral contract incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. It only groups fields implicitly as metadata vs. file_upload, which adds minimal meaning beyond schema titles. It fails to clarify required work_id or value formats, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 updates an existing Compoid record, using the specific verb 'update' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_record by specifying 'existing' and from update_community by specifying 'record'.
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 clear context on when to use this tool: to update an existing record. It also explains two distinct usage modes (metadata only vs. metadata and file replacement). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like Compoid_create_record for new records, so exclusions are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair (create/get/update/search for communities and records, plus upload/download for files). No two tools have overlapping purposes; even get_record_details and download_files are clearly separated by metadata vs file retrieval.
All tools follow a consistent 'Compoid_<verb>_<noun>' pattern in snake_case, e.g., create_community, get_record_details, search_records. The prefix and verb-noun structure are uniform across the entire set, making the naming predictable.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing two core resources (communities and records) plus file operations. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate rather than bloated or thin.
The server provides create, read, update, and search for both communities and records, along with upload and download for files. The only notable gap is the absence of delete operations for either resource, but the core lifecycle (search, create, retrieve, update) is well covered.