update_manual_entry

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not explain whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to associated files, or any validation or side-effect 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 short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It simply restates the tool name with no detail about the operation, making it an empty shell that fails to earn its place.

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?

With 6 parameters, 4 required, including a complex 'entries' array, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It provides no explanation of return values, behavior, or edge cases, making the tool nearly impossible to invoke correctly based on the description alone.

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 high (83%), so the schema itself documents most parameters. However, the description itself provides no parameter semantics, and the 'entries' parameter is undocumented. The high coverage sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 manual entry' is a direct restatement of the tool name, providing no additional scope or specificity. It conveys the verb+resource but is purely tautological, not distinguishing from sibling tools beyond the 'update' verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_manual_entry, delete_manual_entry, or list_manual_entries. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or alternative tools, leaving the agent with zero context for tool selection.

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