mmar_update_bendpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the update action but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or expected response behavior—similar to the update_drive calibration example.

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 a compact two-sentence summary with no redundant wording. The action verb leads, and the additional sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters well, but the description omits any mention of return values or error behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a mild gap.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, though 'change the waypoint position' hints at the content of bendpoint_data.

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 an existing bendpoint') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling create/delete bendpoint tools. Adding 'change the waypoint position' further specifies the exact purpose.

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 the waypoint position' gives a clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., create_bendpoint, delete_bendpoint) or provide exclusion criteria.

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