update_features

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that updates are scoped by a where clause, but it does not address what happens when no where clause is given (allow_update_all handles that, but the description does not say it), whether edits are pending vs committed (save_edits handles that), or any permission requirements. The schema parameters fill some of this gap, but the description itself adds little beyond the basic operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, the target, and the scoping condition concisely.

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?

Given a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core operation but omits important behavioral context such as the pending-edit workflow, the update-all guard, and map/layer resolution behavior. The schema and output schema compensate partially, but the description leaves material gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'where clause' and 'attributes and/or geometry', which maps to existing parameters but adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Update attributes and/or geometry of rows matching a where clause.' This specifies the operation, what is being updated, and the scoping mechanism. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like insert_features or delete_features, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like calculate_field or the save_edits/discard_edits workflow. An agent must infer context entirely from the description and schema.

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