zerodb_plan_update

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond a simple update: 'Content changes are diffed and stored in version history automatically.' This informs the agent that updates are non-destructive and that history is preserved. With no annotations provided, this adds meaningful transparency, though it does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and earns its place by adding the versioning detail. No fluff or unnecessary words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a critical behavioral aspect. It does not explain return values, but for a straightforward update tool this is acceptable. The versioning context also enriches the overall understanding. It falls short only in not providing explicit usage guidelines, which are implied by sibling names.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds semantic value by explaining that 'content' changes are diffed, which affects how the content parameter should be used. It also implies that the 'id' selects an existing artifact, reinforcing the purpose of the required parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update a plan artifact.' The verb 'Update' is specific, and 'plan artifact' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, and history. The mention of 'version history' further aligns with the plan tool family, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing plan artifact, but it does not explicitly contrast with zerodb_plan_create or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The intent is inferable from the sibling tool names, but the description itself offers no direct alternatives or exclusions.

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