mmar_update_relationclass_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It introduces the 'complete desired state' requirement, which hints at an overwrite-style update, but it does not explicitly state that existing data will be replaced or mention permission/session prerequisites, error behavior, or reversibility. This is a moderate 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each sentence earns its place. The first defines the purpose; the second clarifies the update semantics. There is no redundant phrasing or 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?

The description provides the essential purpose and update mode but lacks warnings about overwrite semantics, authentication requirements, or expected return values. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it is adequate but not complete — an agent might not know that sending incomplete data could result in loss of existing fields. No output schema or annotations further reduce the context available.

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 documents both parameters with full coverage (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'relationclass_instance_data' must be the complete desired state, not a partial patch. This extra semantic clarity elevates the score above the schema-only baseline.

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 relationclass instance') and identifies the resource type, adding the parenthetical '(connection/edge)' to distinguish it from class instances. It also specifies the update mode ('Send the complete desired state'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling update tools.

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 provides clear context: it is for updating an existing relationclass instance. The phrase 'Send the complete desired state' implies a full-state replacement, guiding the user on how to construct the request. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives (e.g., for partial updates or deleting), 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.