update_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Supports dry_run' without explaining what dry_run does, whether changes persist on success, what validations apply to role/cardinality updates, or how errors surface. This is a material gap for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then lists fields efficiently. The parenthetical cardinality examples are concise and useful, with no filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits the required identifier semantics, dry-run semantics, return values, and validation consequences. It adequately covers the basic 'modify these fields' case but not enough for confident invocation in edge cases.

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 lists most updatable fields and gives a helpful cardinality format example ('0,n', '1,1', ...), but it omits the two required identifiers, model_id and reference_ref, and does not explain how they identify the target reference.

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 names the operation and resource: 'Update a reference', and enumerates the fields that can be changed. This lets an agent distinguish it from create_reference, delete_reference, and get_reference, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling reference tools, nor whether the target reference must already exist. The update verb implies the use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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