fm_update_record

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions PATCH (partial update) but omits error handling, record existence checks, access requirements, or side effects.

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?

Very concise, one sentence with key info front-loaded. However, could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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?

No output schema, low schema coverage. The description fails to explain return values, error messages, or constraints. A mutation tool with 3 parameters should provide more complete context.

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 only 33% (only fields property has a description). Description adds no extra meaning; 'by ROWID' hints at rowId but doesn't explain table or field formats. Baseline compensation for low coverage required but absent.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing FileMaker record by ROWID' with specific verb, resource, and method (PATCH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fm_create_record, fm_delete_record, and fm_get_record.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Implies update via ROWID but doesn't describe prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools like fm_query or fm_run_script might be preferred.

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