update_habits

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the partial-update behavior (only provided fields change), support for single or multiple habits, and the requirement for habit_id. It doesn't cover error handling or atomicity, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 well-structured and efficient: a one-line purpose, a brief behavior note, a compact field list, and two illustrative examples. There is no redundancy, and the format makes scanning easy.

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 complex nested parameter, the description thoroughly explains the parameter structure, required fields, and behavior. It's missing explicit error handling or return value information, but the presence of an output schema and the detailed usage notes make it nearly complete.

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 is completely opaque—just a generic object/array with no field descriptions. The description compensates by specifying the required habit_id, listing all optional fields with types, and providing clear examples. This gives full semantic meaning 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update one or more existing habits in place.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_habits by emphasizing 'existing' and 'in place.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 use for modifying existing habits, reinforced by examples showing single and batch updates. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context and sibling tool names make the intended use clear.

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