alterios_update_content_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Requires explicit write gates' suggests a safety check but does not explain what write gates are, whether operations are destructive, or if dry_run (default true) relates to planning. Missing key behavioral details.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences), but this conciseness sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input semantics, return values, or context among many write siblings.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the 9 parameters, including the required content_id and field_values. This leaves the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 states 'Plan or update fields on an existing Alterios content row,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, 'plan' vs 'update' is not further differentiated, and the tool is one of many write-related siblings, so clarity is good but not maximal.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like alterios_fast_live_write or alterios_rest_write. The phrase 'requires explicit write gates' hints at a safety requirement but does not specify conditions or alternatives.

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