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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description adds that it mutates data and returns the updated record. It also explains the partial update behavior and read-only field types, which are useful beyond the annotation.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds key details and an example. Every sentence is valuable.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, partial update nature, and read-only fields. It could mention error handling or authentication, but what is provided is sufficient for most use cases.

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 parameters. The description adds an example and repeats read-only info, but this is marginal improvement. 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?

The description states 'updates a record' clearly, with the verb 'update' and resource 'record'. It also provides the API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like knack_create_record or knack_delete_record, though the context of mutation helps.

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 notes that only included fields change and that Auto Increment/Formula/Equation fields are read-only. This provides some constraints but does not give when-to-use guidance compared to alternatives (e.g., create vs. update).

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