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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger is signposted structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: optimistic concurrency via version and the fact that protected statuses are rejected here. However it never states whether `data` is merged or replaces the stored object, which is the single most consequential behavior for a destructive update.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the concurrency rule is placed early. Nothing is bloated, though the sentences are telegraphic rather than 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?

For a destructive, schema-opaque mutation over ~50 entity types with a free-form nested `data` object and no output schema, this is far too thin. Key gaps: merge-vs-replace semantics, which fields are immutable, required permissions, and what a failed version check returns.

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% for three required parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. `type`, `id` and `data` are never explained, and the one parameter it does discuss ('version') is absent from the top-level schema (additionalProperties=false), so it must live inside `data` — a mapping the agent has to guess.

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?

'Modifier un élément' states the verb but the resource is left as a generic 'élément'; the actual resource scope is only inferable from the `type` enum in the schema. The name update_record plus the enum make the intent recoverable, but the description itself never says these are workspace records of ~50 distinct entity types.

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?

Provides two concrete cues: pass `version` to detect concurrent modifications, and protected business statuses must be changed through their dedicated action rather than this tool. That is a genuine when-not hint, but it names no sibling tool and gives no guidance on when to prefer batch_records/batch_update_pages or create vs update.

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