update_screen

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Partially update', which implies a PATCH-like behavior (non-destructive partial changes), but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as permissions required, idempotency, side effects, error handling, or constraints. The description provides minimal transparency beyond the mutation nature.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It leads with the verb and resource ('Partially update a screen'), then adds the critical detail about the API field names. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 that the tool has an output schema (per context signals) and only two parameters, the description is partially adequate. However, the changes object is complex (nested object with additionalProperties) and the description provides minimal guidance on its contents. With an output schema, return values are covered, but the input semantics remain underdescribed. A more complete description would list common updatable fields or note the API reference.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'using AbleSign API field names in `changes`', but does not explain what valid fields are, the structure of the changes object, or any constraints. The schema only specifies additionalProperties true, so the description adds little meaning beyond that. No examples or lists of common fields are given.

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 does a partial update of a screen, with the verb 'update' and resource 'screen'. It adds specificity by mentioning 'AbleSign API field names', distinguishing the expected input format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_screen_group, but the resource name itself provides sufficient distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool recommendations are provided. The description only states what the tool does, not the context for its appropriate use.

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