motimate_update_moti

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that metadata is updated and lists fields; it does not explain whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, whether permissions are required, or what response is returned. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 leads with the action and resource, then lists the relevant fields. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary 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?

The description plus the fully documented schema give an agent enough to identify the inputs and the general operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, important behavior remains unspecified: whether fields are merged or overwritten, whether sending only moti_id is valid, and what the tool returns after updating.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented in German, including array examples for tags and category_ids. The description restates the same field names without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Aktualisiert'), names the exact resource ('Metadaten einer bestehenden Schulung'), and lists the affected fields (Titel, Beschreibung, Tags, Kategorien). This clearly differentiates it from create_moti, search_motis, and content/chapter 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 phrase 'bestehenden Schulung' implies this tool is for modifying an existing training rather than creating or searching, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like create_moti, and no exclusions stated.

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