Update A Delay Log Type

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds the insight that only supplied fields are changed (partial update), which is useful beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like authentication needs or rate limits.

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 relatively concise, consisting of two sentences plus endpoint information. It front-loads the core action and includes relevant API details. Minor grammatical awkwardness ('update an existing Daily Log records') reduces clarity slightly but overall is well-structured.

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?

Considering the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the action and return value ('returns the modified object on success'). It also includes endpoint and API category for context. However, it does not explain what the modified object contains, which would be helpful in the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions required parameters (project_id, id) and implies that visible is optional by stating 'only the supplied fields are changed'. This adds marginal value but does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond the schema.

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 it updates the visibility of a Delay Log Type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_delay_log. It specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Delay Log Type', and mentions that only supplied fields are changed. However, the phrasing 'update an existing Daily Log records' is slightly ambiguous as it suggests updating records rather than the type itself.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria. Given the large number of sibling tools, the absence of such guidance is a notable gap.

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