dawarich_update_place

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'after reading its current value', suggesting a read-before-write pattern, but does not explain partial update behavior, field optionality, idempotency, or any side effects. This is a significant 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes a meaningful precondition. Every word contributes to the intended workflow, making it highly concise without being wasteful.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, but the description provides no information about parameters, return values, or conditional usage. While an output schema exists, the description alone is insufficient for correct invocation. The phrase 'after reading its current value' hints at a workflow but does not establish completeness.

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 mentions none of the 7 parameters. It does not compensate by explaining which fields are updatable or how they relate to the 'current value' precondition. The agent must infer parameter meaning solely from schema names, which is insufficient.

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) and the resource (Dawarich place), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_place and delete_place. The phrase 'after reading its current value' adds a specific precondition, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing place after reading its current state, which is a valuable workflow hint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., create or delete) or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is more implied than explicit.

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