update_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PATCH semantics (only provided fields change) and the error behavior on missing records. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'update' statement, though it does not mention permissions or return values.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with front-loaded key information: the action, the resource, the semantics, and the failure condition. No wasted words.

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 description covers the core behavior (patch, existence check) and is appropriate for the tool's complexity. There is no output schema, so return values are not described, but this is a minor omission given the simple update operation and complete parameter schema.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters, including clear explanation of the 'data' parameter. The tool description reinforces the patch semantics but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 updates specific fields on an existing Dataverse record, specifies PATCH semantics, and distinguishes from siblings like create_record and delete_record by emphasizing partial updates on existing records.

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 implies usage for existing records via 'existing Dataverse record' and the explicit failure condition if the record does not exist, but it does not directly mention alternatives such as upsert_record for create-or-update scenarios. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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