Update Capacities block

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses crucial semantics: strict structural API 2.0 JSON, the requirement that the type must match, and that omitted blocks/columns preserve children while supplied children replace them. This gives the agent the exact behavioral rules needed to avoid data loss, exceeding the annotation-only signal.

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 sentences, no filler: verb, resource, prerequisite, and key behavioral rule. Each sentence carries essential information, and the most important verb is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with an intricate recursive block schema, the description covers the prerequisite read, the type constraint, and the destructive/preserve behavior around children. With an output schema present, no return-value explanation is needed; the instructions are sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful semantics for the central 'block' parameter by explaining the preserve-vs-replace behavior and the type-matching constraint. This enriches the schema definitions and warrants a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing Capacities block'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_object (whole object) and create_object (creation). It also adds 'in place' and 'strict structural API 2.0 JSON', leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Read get_object in structured mode first,' establishing a required precondition and workflow. However, it does not directly contrast with update_object or state when to prefer this over alternative update/creation tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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