mmar_update_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the server diffs the desired state against the current state and applies changes to attributes, ports, and other properties, which is important behavioral context beyond just 'update'. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements or return value.

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 concise sentence with the key action front-loaded. It communicates purpose and behavior with no waste.

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 only 2 simple params and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavior. It could mention response format or require existing class, but the 'existing class' phrase implies it, keeping completeness sufficient for low complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage, describing uuid and class_data (with 'complete desired state'). The description adds the diff/apply behavior but doesn't provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema 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 tool updates an existing class (node type), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_class_instance by specifying 'class (node type)'.

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 description gives clear context on when to use the tool: when updating an existing class, and instructs to send the complete desired state. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the 'node type' clarification helps differentiate from instance-level updates.

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