update_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It only states the action and its effect (recalculation on open) but omits details such as whether the operation is reversible, if it affects all field types, performance implications, or dependencies on the document being saved.

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?

A single sentence of 8 words that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 simplicity (no parameters, likely straightforward return via output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from mentioning the scope ('all fields') or typical use cases, but the output schema likely compensates for return value details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description adds no parameter-level detail but correctly implies that the operation applies globally (all fields), which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 verb 'mark' and the resource 'fields', with the specific purpose of forcing recalculation on open. It distinguishes itself from individual field operations like add_field or delete_field by targeting all fields collectively.

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 when recalculation of all fields is needed (e.g., after content changes), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like updating individual fields or forcing recalculation through other means.

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