Patch Entry

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it uses PATCH method, that publish state is unchanged, and provides detailed format for richtext, relations, and media fields. Lacks mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or conflict handling, but overall strong for the non-annotated case.

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?

Two main sentences plus a detailed parameter block. Front-loaded with action and key behavioral warning (publish state). The parameter description is thorough but not overly verbose. Minor room for more structured presentation, but effective.

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 complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description explains input well but does not describe what the API returns (e.g., updated entry or confirmation). With no output schema, some return value context would improve completeness.

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 100% but description adds significant value: explains merge semantics (include only changing fields), richtext as markdown, relation format (UUID/id, one-to-one vs one-to-many), and media asset format. This goes well beyond the schema's basic field types.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Partially update a content entry' and identifies it as HTTP PATCH. It distinguishes from update_entry by specifying partial vs full replacement. The resource (content entry) and scope are 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?

Explicitly recommends preferring this over update_entry when not replacing the entire entry. Clearly states that saves do not change publish state and that publish_entry should be called separately. Provides concrete context for when to use.

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