dl_object_update

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: revision-check semantics imply optimistic concurrency, 'per-object saved readback' describes the response, and the artifact branch explains tab mapping without echoing renderer source.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No filler, though 'without echoing renderer source' is somewhat cryptic jargon that borders on noise.

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?

No output schema exists and 'per-object saved readback' only gestures at return behavior. For a destructive, multi-object mutation with unexplained operation_id and delivery_mode, the description leaves gaps an agent may need.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it only partially does. It clarifies how artifact_path sits beside object_type/object_id/expected_revision and what happens to tabs, but patch, operation_id, and delivery_mode are left unexplained.

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 and resource ('Apply narrow saved-object patches') and adds scope detail (revision checks, per-object readback). It implicitly separates itself from dl_object_create/publish by emphasizing patching of existing objects, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 word 'narrow' hints at intended scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives like dl_object_create or dl_object_publish. An agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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