erinys_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: partial update (only provided fields are changed), which is not immediately obvious from the schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as error handling when the id doesn't exist, whether the update is reversible, or concurrency behavior. Given the mutation nature, this is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and adds a crucial behavioral note without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place and improves clarity.

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 7 parameters, is a mutation operation, and has no annotations, but it does have an output schema, so return values are handled. The partial-update behavior is a critical piece of context and is provided. However, the description remains thin for a tool of this complexity, lacking information about error conditions, id requirements beyond the schema, and what 'observation' means in the broader system context. It is minimally adequate but leaves 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds no meaning to the parameters themselves; it only explains that unspecified fields remain unchanged. Parameter names like type, scope, title, content, project, and metadata are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to provide any additional semantic detail, such as allowed formats or relationships. This falls short of compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Update an existing observation.' It specifies the verb (update) and the resource (observation), and the phrase 'existing' distinguishes it from creation. This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like erinys_save and erinys_delete.

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 clear context for usage: it is for updating an existing observation, and the partial-update behavior is explicit with 'Only provided fields are changed.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficiently clear to infer when this tool is appropriate versus others.

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