Cli update

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so safety basics are covered. The description adds that it issues a POST request and raises ParameterError, which is useful, but it never says what gets modified, what overwrite actually replaces, or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is a structured docstring (Args/Returns/Raises) with the purpose front-loaded and appropriately sized for 11 parameters. Still, several Args lines are filler that restate the parameter name, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only annotation-level safety hints, the description leaves major gaps: it never explains the effect of the update on snapshots, how filters combine, or what the response contains beyond 'the response object from the POST request'.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it does list every parameter. However several glosses are pure tautologies ('status: Filter by status', 'filter_type: Filter type', 'extractors: Comma-separated list of extractors'), giving no format, timestamp units, or expected values beyond what the bare schema shows.

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 it runs the 'archivebox update' CLI command, which is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title, but the Args list hints at the actual work (re-archiving, indexing, filtering snapshots). It offers no differentiation from siblings such as archivebox_ingest_snapshots or archivebox_cli_add, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone what makes 'update' distinct.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The argument names imply scenarios (resume, only_new, status filters) but the agent must infer them; nothing routes it between this tool and the ingest/list/add siblings.

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