strapi_update_tutorial

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing tutorial' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to fields not specified in the update, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Update an existing tutorial' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, or what the tool returns upon success. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (document_id, title, content, description, difficulty, duration) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or update semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 'Update an existing tutorial' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (tutorial), but it's vague about what specific aspects can be updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like strapi_update_blog_post or strapi_update_event, which follow the same pattern but for different resources.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tutorial ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new tutorials vs. updating), or how it differs from other update tools in the sibling list. The description offers only basic functional information without contextual usage advice.

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