update_reference_list_row

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states 'mutation' and gives a variable example. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success/failure, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 very short, but it is fragmented and not composed as a coherent sentence. The example variables are useful, but the overall structure is more of a schema-generated snippet than a well-organized explanation, with some redundancy ('Variables: input' repeats schema info).

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?

This mutation tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to explain what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect. Instead, it offers only a technical mutation name and an example input, leaving major gaps in purpose, side effects, and return behavior.

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 descriptions are minimal ('GraphQL: UpdateReferenceListRowInput!'), but the example in the description ('input: {id, values: {column, value}}') adds meaningful structure beyond the schema, clarifying the nested shape of the required input parameter. The customer_slug parameter is clearly described in the schema itself.

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 restates the mutation name ('mutation updateReferenceListRow') and provides a domain prefix ('Reference Lists') without explicitly stating what the tool does. The example variables hint at updating a row's column value, but no clear verb+resource statement is present, making it nearly tautological.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_reference_list_column or update_reference_list_row variations. It only provides an example, so an agent receives no context for tool selection.

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