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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says whether this is a partial (patch) or full replace update, what happens to fields omitted from 'data', what gets destroyed, or what permission is needed for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But it is sized too thin for a destructive four-parameter mutation tool — the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight, front-loaded communication.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and a nested 'data' payload. The description does not explain partial-vs-full update semantics, merge behavior, tenant handling, or the success/error surface — all things an agent needs before calling a write tool that annotations flag as destructive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the nested 'data' object and the multi-tenant 'tenant' note. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Update an existing object'. The word 'existing' implicitly contrasts with crud_create and crud_delete among the siblings. However, 'object' and 'current domain' remain generic — the description never names the object types (records, schemas, etc.) or clarifies the domain scope implied by the surrounding CRUD/schema toolset.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of crud_create, crud_delete, crud_search, or the more specific schema_update. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no conditions under which this generic update is the right choice over a domain-specific sibling.

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