spoolman_update_spool

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool performs a partial update and enforces mutual exclusivity between two parameters. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing values. It provides some behavioral context but is not fully 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?

Two concise sentences deliver essential information without fluff. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the operation, the second clarifies parameter usage constraints. Ideal length and structure.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the key update semantics and constraints, but it does not help the agent understand when to use this tool versus weight-specific siblings. The schema covers parameter definitions, so the description is adequate but leaves contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining the partial update behavior and the mutual exclusivity of remaining_weight and used_weight, a constraint not encoded in the schema itself. This elevates the score above 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 an existing spool by ID') and identifies the resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like spoolman_use_spool or spoolman_measure_spool, which also modify spool state. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 usage guidance ('Only provide the fields you want to change', 'remaining_weight and used_weight are mutually exclusive') but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. No mention of spoolman_use_spool or spoolman_measure_spool for weight-related updates, leaving selection without guidance.

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