update_bottle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that unknown fields and invalid values are rejected, which is useful, but it does not explain success/failure behavior, whether the update is partial, whether it validates the required `bottle_id` existence, or what the response looks like. A mutation tool with no annotation coverage needs more than this.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the validation behavior is stated in a secondary clause. Every word earns its place, even though more content is needed overall.

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?

For a tool with an opaque nested `changes` object, no output schema, no annotations, and a similarly named sibling `update_remaining`, this description is incomplete. The agent cannot reliably construct a valid call because the editable fields and the expected `changes` object format are never specified.

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 provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'editable BottleInput fields' but does not enumerate those fields, explain the structure of the `changes` object, clarify acceptable value formats, or describe the role of `bottle_id`. The agent is left guessing at the shape of the required `changes` 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 identifies the operation ('Update') and resource ('editable BottleInput fields'), and it adds a useful validation detail ('rejects unknown fields and invalid values'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool `update_remaining`, which likely has overlapping update semantics.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `update_remaining` or `add_bottle`. The description states what the tool does but gives no context for choosing it over sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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