Update record

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds nothing beyond the annotations: no indication of whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to omitted fields, whether it requires ownership/permissions, or whether the change is reversible.

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 single short sentence, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. There is no waste because there is almost no 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, 50% schema coverage, and only two non-restrictive annotations, the description should carry far more weight. It omits update semantics, required vs optional field behavior, and failure/authorization expectations, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.

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 description coverage is only 50%, with six parameters (name, type, farm_id, record_id, applied_at, description) and no parameter information in the description at all. The phrase 'existing record' faintly implies record_id is required, but nothing compensates for the undocumented half of the schema, particularly the enum values and the optional farm_id semantics.

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 sentence 'Update an existing record' restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, giving an agent no more than it can infer from the identifier. It never clarifies what a 'record' is here, nor separates this tool from the many sibling record tools (get_record, create_record, delete_record, list_records). This is tautology rather than a distinct purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_record, delete_record, or get_record, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer that this is the mutation counterpart to the other record tools purely from the verb in the name.

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