mmp_update

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that old content is preserved as 'D' and linked to a new ID, but omits details on permissions, conflict handling, 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?

Three sentences, each adding value. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently guides the user to prerequisite steps.

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 the nested 'entry' object and output schema, the description covers the update mechanism briefly. It omits details on the expected structure of 'entry' and return values, making it less complete than ideal.

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 0% and the description only indirectly references 'rev' and 'entry' without explaining 'id' or 'file'. This provides minimal guidance on parameter meaning and usage beyond the schema.

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 supersedes an active entry with a replacement, preserving the old version. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mmp_write or mmp_create by focusing on updating an existing entry, but could be more explicit about its unique role.

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 advises using the latest revision from mmp_open, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like mmp_write or mmp_deprecate, leaving room for confusion.

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