update_record

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is destructive, and is idempotent. The description adds the important behavioral requirement that the agent must first present the exact change to the user and obtain approval before setting confirm=true. This goes beyond the annotations and covers the main side-effect risk of updating a record.

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 sentences, no wasted words, and the core operation is stated first. The confirmation requirement is front-loaded right after the purpose, making the most important behavioral constraint immediately visible.

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 four-parameter update tool, the description covers the purpose, the confirmation requirement, and the target resource. There is no output schema, so a note about the return value would add completeness, but all invocation-critical information is present and the annotations cover safety traits like destructiveness and idempotency.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains object_type, record_id, data, and confirm. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields on an existing Salesforce record.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_record, delete_record, and get_record, and immediately identifies the operation as an update rather than a read or creation.

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: it updates an existing Salesforce record. It also communicates the key prerequisite that confirm=true must be set only after user approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_record or delete_record, but the update-vs-create/delete distinction is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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