mmar_update_attribute_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (updating values), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, error handling, or what the return value looks like. This is a thin disclosure for a write operation.

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 two sentences, with the purpose stated first and a usage clarification second. There is no redundant or filler content.

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's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not explicitly differentiate from mmar_update_attribute, nor does it explain partial vs. full replacement behavior. It is minimally complete but could benefit from a note on how attribute_data is merged.

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 schema provides 100% coverage, describing both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples of what attribute values might be, but does not elaborate on the JSON structure beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('attribute instance'), and explicitly says it changes data values on elements. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mmar_update_attribute, which likely updates attribute definitions rather than instances.

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 phrase 'Use this to change data values on elements' provides direct usage context, and the examples (name, description, custom attribute) clarify typical use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'instance' distinction and context signals make the intended usage clear.

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