objects_update_object_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to existing data. It relies entirely on annotations with zero additional disclosure.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no value beyond the tool name and fails to front-load any actionable information. Every word is wasted because it doesn't communicate anything new.

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?

Despite the schema covering parameter details, the description is too sparse to support correct use. It doesn't explain what a 'record' is, how to identify it, or the implications of the update. An agent would have to infer context from the schema and annotations alone, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 each parameter (id, body, schemaKey, locationId) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but under the baseline rule for high coverage, a 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 Record' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It fails to clarify what type of record, whether it's for custom or standard objects, or the scope of the update. The verb is present but the resource is ambiguous, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like objects_create_object_record or objects_delete_object_record.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, related tools, or any conditions that should trigger selection. With many sibling tools covering object record operations, this absence is critical.

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