pennylane_update_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine domain rule not present in structured data: the entry must remain balanced after edits, and the permitted line operations (create/update/delete) are enumerated. It stops short of stating whether balance is validated server-side or what errors result from imbalance.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint (balance) placed last as a rule reminder. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation scope plus the key balance constraint for a multi-parameter update. It is nearly complete, missing only error/validation behavior for an unbalanced entry, which is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 one of the nine parameters is already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only a coarse mapping (header vs lines) that the parameter names already convey, without clarifying formats or interactions such as the required id inside lines_to_update items.

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 specific verb ("Modifie") and resource ("une écriture existante"), and its emphasis on the entry already existing cleanly separates it from sibling pennylane_create_entry and pennylane_get_entry. It also scopes the operation to both header and line-level changes, so the agent knows exactly what surface is touched.

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?

Usage is implied by "écriture existante" (you need an existing entry with an id), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance, no prerequisites, and no when-not conditions. The balance rule is stated as a constraint rather than a routing hint, so the agent must infer the context of use.

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