Обновить запись

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

Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints; the description adds key behaviors: PATCH method for partial updates, automatic resolution of lookup fields with text values, and idempotency with identical data, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 three concise sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, a key behavior (lookup resolution), and idempotency. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core update functionality, idempotency, and lookup handling. With no output schema, return value details are not expected, but mentioning potential error conditions or prerequisites would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema, aside from the overall PATCH context.

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 updates record fields by UUID using PATCH, and distinguishes itself from create/delete/batch siblings by specifying the partial update method and automatic lookup resolution.

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 indicates when to use (updating specific fields of a known record) and mentions idempotency, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like bpm_batch_update for bulk operations.

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