carapace_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you provide will be updated'), which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it omits what happens to omitted fields (though implied unchanged), return values, error conditions, or idempotency, leaving gaps.

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 one sentence of 15 words, entirely front-loaded with the action ('Update') and resource. It includes the key addendum about partial updates, and every word 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It handles parameter semantics well via the schema, but fails to describe the return format or error behavior, which the agent would need to know for an update operation. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds the important 'partial update' semantic, clarifying that each field is optional and only provided ones are changed. This goes beyond what the schema states.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'contributions' on Carapace AI, and explicitly says 'existing' to distinguish from creating new contributions. The sibling tools (query, contribute, get, delete) make the differentiation clear, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 gives context that this is for updating existing contributions, implying ownership ('your existing') and partial updates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use carapace_contribute for new contributions'.

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