volkern_update_cita

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 40% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the update operation returns, what fields are optional versus required beyond the schema, or how the tool behaves in edge cases. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.

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 only 40%, with 3 of 5 parameters lacking descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general 'update' concept, failing to compensate for the schema gaps. However, the schema does document the required 'citaId' and provides an enum for 'estado', establishing a baseline.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing appointment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from creation tools like 'volkern_create_cita', but doesn't specify what aspects can be updated beyond the general concept.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'volkern_cita_accion' or 'volkern_complete_task'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for updating appointments versus other appointment-related operations.

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